Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change | Date | Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:51:23 +0200 |
| |
On Sunday, 19 of October 2008, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, david@lang.hm wrote: > > > > Surely some scripts will start to break as soon as the third number gets > > > three digits. > > we've had three digit numbers in the third position before (2.3 and 2.5 > > went well past three digits IIRC) > > Did we? I only recall 2.5.7[something] and 2.3.5[something] (plus special > 2.3.99 release). > > > > Actually, I thought we could continue to use a w.x.y.z numbering > > > scheme, but in such a way that: > > > w = ($year - 2000) / 10 + 2 (so that we start from 2) > > > x = $year % 10 > > > y = (number of major release in $year) > > > z = (number of stable version for major release w.x.y) > > > Then, the first major release in 2009 would be 2.9.1 and its first > > > -stable "child" would become 2.9.1.1. In turn, the first major > > > release in 2010 could be 3.0.1 and so on. > > if you want the part of the version number to increment based on the year, > > just make it the year and don't complicate things. > > In addition to that, having the kernel version dependent on year doesn't > really seem to make much sense to me. Simply said, I don't see any > relation of kernel source code contents to the current date in whatever > calendar system. > > And 2.x+1.y-rcZ+1 immediately following 2.x.y-rcZ really hurts my eyes :)
Hm, why would that happen?
Rafael
| |