| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0807210216260.1125@asgard.lang.hm> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists