Messages in this thread | | | From | Rob Landley <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change | Date | Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:26:57 -0500 |
| |
On Wednesday 15 October 2008 19:25:09 Greg KH wrote: > Hi, > > You brought this topic up a few months ago, and passed it off as > something we would discuss at the kernel summit. But that never > happened, so I figured I'd bring it up again here. > > So, as someone who constantly is dealing with kernel version numbers all > the time with the -stable trees, our current numbering scheme is a pain > a times. How about this proposal instead?
I don't understand, what exactly is a pain about it? (I can't tell why a new one is better if you don't say what you're objecting to about the old one...)
> Benefits of this is it more accuratly represents to people just how old > the kernel they are currently running is (2.6.9 would be have been > 2004.9.0 on this naming scheme.)
Benefits is plural, but I seem to have missed the other ones. Or is that the only issue, wanting to put a more prominent "best if used by" date in the name ala Windows 95?
Rob
| |