Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change | Date | Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:45:15 +0200 |
| |
On Sunday, 19 of October 2008, david@lang.hm wrote: > 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)
Well, in that case I think it would be reasonable to cuntinue the 2008 numbering so that 2009.1.0-rc5 in your example would still be 2008.5.0-rc5.
That said, I kind of agree that the numbering need not be time-related. One alternative might be to release 2.9.0 instead of 2.6.29 and then continue in in such a way that each of the three numbers is always a one-digit decimal. Then, we'd have 2.9.0, 2.9.1 ... 2.9.9, 3.0.0, 3.0.1 etc.
Thanks, Rafael
| |