Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:47:10 -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, 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.
so how would you do the -stable releases?
David Lang
| |