linux-kernel - Re: On the kernel numbering scheme

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:   Mon, 16 Apr 2018 19:55:16 -0500
From:   "\\0xDynamite" <dreamingforward@...il.com>
To:     "Artem S. Tashkinov" <t.artem@...os.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: On the kernel numbering scheme

 > The current kernel numbering scheme makes no sense at all because the
> first two numbers don't represent anything at all. They had some meaning
> back in the 1.x 2.x 3.x days but then with the introduction of the new
> rolling development model, they became worthless.
>
> I'd love to change the kernel numbering scheme to this:
>
> YYYY.RELEASE.PATCH_LEVEL
>
> So that the first kernel to be released in 2019 will be numbered
> 2019.0(.0),

If you're going to suggest changes, then you should do it like this:
Change major numbers ONLY when you've introduced a new incompatibility
with your API and increment minor numbers for everything else.  THEN,
the first number WILL mean something.  If your software changes
something outside the way users communicate with the kernel (major
changes) and just changes something that COULD affect other software,
then have multiple partitions in your release number, like 3.5.41.

Marxos