From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758190Ab0JVRg2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:36:28 -0400 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:36066 "EHLO lo.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755823Ab0JVRg1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:36:27 -0400 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: On Linux numbering scheme Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:36:10 -0400 Message-ID: References: <18536664.253751287691209904.JavaMail.root@mail-zbox20.bo3.lycos.com> <28654042.253821287691362834.JavaMail.root@mail-zbox20.bo3.lycos.com> <20101022020006.GF19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20101022095333.GA10047@fysh.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-141-149-14-139.alb.east.verizon.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100825 Lightning/1.0b2 SeaMonkey/2.0.7 In-Reply-To: <20101022095333.GA10047@fysh.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Athanasius wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 03:00:06AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 07:06:23PM -0500, kevin granade wrote: >> >>> Any particular reason not to continue the date-oriented format and >>> have the third number be the numerical representation of the month >>> rather than an incrementing numbering of the releases? It would still >>> be monotonically increasing, which is the only requirement, right? >> >> Why do we need to change it, anyway? > > /agree > > For the most part it's only distribution maintainers that see or care > about the kernel version number anyway. Anyone else knows what they're > getting into if they compile a kernel themselves, and otherwise is more > likely to say they're using "Linux 10.10" right now .... > > Having said that I had a lovely suggestion in the last round on this > topic which would allow you to know when a kernel was released just from > its version number :). > I thought the odd/even numbering used to 2.5.xx was fine, and I think having the numbering reflect feature set (as it more or less does now) is better than any scheme based on date. That said, this topic will be decided by the vote of the electorate, from a voter pool of one (Linus). Unless he has changed his mind this is all moot anyway. -- Bill Davidsen "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot