linux-kernel - Re: Kernel version : what about s.yy.ww.tt 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, 21 Jul 2008 02:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
From:	david@...g.hm
To:	el es <el_es_cr@...oo.co.uk>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Kernel version : what about s.yy.ww.tt scheme ?

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, el es wrote:

>>
>> also, causes trouble when stable releases cross a year boundary, or
>> when there are several ones in a week. The stable release should
>> only be a counter, not a date.
>>
>> Willy
>>
>>
>
> If there are more stable releases in a week, you could put a release counter
> after a dash, say : 2.08.30.40-[2...X]
>
> If stable continues to be used and leaps over to next year, put another .yy.ww
> section : 2.08.30.09.02
>
> OK I know that's long, but easy to expand if needed, just be sure to separate
> date pieces with dots and counters with dashes. Or...
>
> maybe use them the other way round - the current scheme uses counters separated
> by dots, so maybe the new could do ss.yy-ww-tt[[-yy]-ww][.X]] ? Like
> 2.08-30-40.2 ? 2.08-30-09-02.2 ? But this seems odd, even to me ;)

you are well past the point where the complexity overwelmes the 
information you are providing.

does it really matter _exactly_ when a release was made?

David Lang
--
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/