From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Aravind Ceyardass" Subject: Re: Re: pci-skeleton duplex check Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:55:13 -0400 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20021216185513.43F023D56F@server2.fastmail.fm> References: <200212141428.TAA32351@WS0005.indiatimes.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: aravind1001@speedpost.net Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline To: "arun4linux" , "Michael Richardson" , netdev@oss.sgi.com, "Linux Kernel Mailing List" In-Reply-To: <200212141428.TAA32351@WS0005.indiatimes.com> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hi, A good scheme for numbering kernels or software components in general is as follows For stable releases. (x.even.y=major.minor.patch) increment patch for any bug fixes. increment minor for any enhancements or new interfaces. increment major for interface changes or interface deletions.(dangerous or poor design) We should increment major even if interface remains same but behaviour has changed.(again may be poor design) For development releases we can't follow the above scheme, because the interfaces are in a flux and we may end up in version 589.201.700 from 2.4.20. So, we decide to increment patch number for all changes and deletions. Hope it helps! Regards Aravind -- http://fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail