linux-kernel - Re: [kernel.org mirrors] [kernel.org users] XZ Migration discussion

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:11:05 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	"Sleddens, J.P.G." <j.p.g.sleddens@....nl>
CC:	"FTPAdmin Kernel.org" <ftpadmin@...nel.org>, mirrors@...nel.org,
	users@...nel.org, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [kernel.org mirrors] [kernel.org users] XZ Migration	discussion

On 02/12/2010 12:31 PM, Sleddens, J.P.G. wrote:
>>>> On 12-2-2010 at 20:03, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> On 02/12/2010 06:01 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>> 3* Create a new subdirectory for every 2.6.x kernel, and move all the
>>> related files there. This would shrink the main index drastically, and
>>> each subdirectory would have a reasonable size (except maybe 2.6.16 and
>>> 2.6.27.) Oddly enough this has been done for the files under testing/
>>> already, so I am curious why we don't do it for the release files (and
>>> the testing/incr/ files, while we're at it.)
>>
>> Well, part of the reason why is that we're functionally "stuck" on 2.6;
>> a prefix which really has lost all meaning.
>>
>> It might open up the question if we shouldn't just do a Solaris and drop
>> the leading 2 (so the next kernel would be 6.33) or call the kernel
>> after that 3.0 instead of 2.6.34, and then 3.1 instead of 2.6.35.
> 
> I remember the whole LKML discussion about this a few years back:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/10/15/377 
> 
> The whole year.version   or year/month versioning Greg HK proposed
> made a lot of sense to me.  It would also solve our problem with the 2.6
> directory just growing and growing as the year versioning would make a
> natural hierarchy which keeps going no matter what.

Note also that every time this conversation happens it starts to pull
away in different directions, and as a result nothing happens.

I'm going to stick my foot in it and state the following: I think
incremental numbers work well, and everyone are used to them.  It
doesn't seem to be the major issue with the current scheme; the issue
with the current scheme is that we have one or two levels too much.

	-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/