| 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: <loom.20081016T092338-594@post.gmane.org> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:33:50 +0000 (UTC) From: el es <el_es_cr@...oo.co.uk> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change H. Peter Anvin <hpa <at> zytor.com> writes: > > el es wrote: [snip] > > - informative : the ww and tt numbers are the week numbers of when the actual > > > > release HAPPENED, not when it is predicted. > > > > Which really sucks for dealing with future releases. > Why ? What do you mean by 'future releases' ? Can you predict exactly when the next release will happen ? The current practice of -rcX shows clearly you cannot. Moreover, with my idea you could easily say, which stable release is still supported (and how old its mainline really was) up to the week, which IMHO is granular enough. Also you could for sure say, that e.g. a device/software that hit market in say December this year, will be compatible with e.g. 2.09.XX+ - look at users POV. Current scheme is great, established and understandable, but sucks at this point : for any product, be it hardware or software, you need to print both its date of creation AND the minimum kernel that supports it. With my idea, it is only the date you need. > -hpa > Lukasz -- 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