lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [3.13.y.z extended stable] Linux 3.13.11.7 stable review
    On 09/15/2014 07:26 PM, Greg KH wrote:
    > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 07:18:35PM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
    >> On 09/15/2014 06:03 PM, Greg KH wrote:
    >>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 03:06:50PM -0700, Kamal Mostafa wrote:
    >>>> This is the start of the review cycle for the Linux 3.13.11.7 stable kernel.
    >>>>
    >>>> This version contains 187 new patches, summarized below. The new patches are
    >>>> posted as replies to this message and also available in this git branch:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=ubuntu/linux.git;h=linux-3.13.y-review;a=shortlog
    >>>>
    >>>> git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/linux.git linux-3.13.y-review
    >>>>
    >>>> The review period for version 3.13.11.7 will be open for the next three days.
    >>>> To report a problem, please reply to the relevant follow-up patch message.
    >>>
    >>> As I asked before, please change the name to not be x.y, it is confusing
    >>> for lots of people.
    >>>
    >>> Use the "normal" way of naming kernel releases, pick a few character
    >>> naming scheme please.
    >>>
    >>
    >> I think what Kamal said is that he would consider your request. I,
    >> however, don't think it wise to change version schemes mid-stream in an
    >> established series.
    >
    > Even if that "established series" is the thing that is causing
    > complaints?
    >
    >> Can you provide hard evidence that this version scheme is confusing lots
    >> of people ? I'm only aware of one complaint voiced by Peter Anvin at the
    >> kernel summit (http://lwn.net/Articles/608917/).
    >
    > Peter's complaint is one that I know of that is in the public record.
    >
    > So is mine.
    >
    > How many others do you need?
    >

    This is a seriously silly argument over an _opinion_ of what is
    "confusing", and so far I am not feeling moved by the number of contrary
    opinions.

    Our version scheme makes sense from a Debian perspective in that it
    indicates exactly when the Canonical branch was started. It also has the
    advantage of being distinguishable from the kernel.org version. I _want_
    the consumer to be aware of where they have acquired their kernel
    sources (as if the git URL is insufficient). Frankly, if the version is
    an _enduring_ source of confusion, then perhaps the consumer should seek
    other endeavors.

    rtg
    --
    Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-09-16 17:41    [W:4.004 / U:0.900 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site