Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:29:54 -0700 (PDT) | From | david@lang ... | Subject | Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change |
| |
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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?
with the date based numbers, that was one of the things that 'could' happen as the year changed (2008.5.0-rc4 would be followed by 2009.1.0-rc5)
David Lang
| |