| 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: <87ej2g5p40.fsf@basilikum.skogtun.org> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:14:39 +0200 From: Harald Arnesen <skogtun.harald@...il.com> To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> writes: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 04:26:19PM +0200, markus reichelt wrote: >> Why not just keep it? It has worked so far, and from a strictly >> end-user point of view I cannot see any advantages at all with a new >> scheme. The ideas mentioned so far don't cut it either. > > I'd cast a vote for keeping it as well. "2.6" is actually a great > marker so that people know that it's highly likely the version number > is for the Linux kernel. Contrast "I'm running 2.6.27" versus "I'm > running 27" (huh, what does that mean?) or "I'm running the 27 kernel" > or "I'm running Linux kernel version 27" or worse yet "I'm running > 2008-03". Something like "2.6.27" is just easier to say, and less > prone to misunderstanding/confusion. > > Let's just leave things the way they are. My suggestion: When 2.6.28 is released, rename it to 2.8 (or 2.8.0). The next one will be 2.9, then 2.10 and so on. Today's 2.6.x.y will be 2.8.y. It should minimise breakage of userspace programs. Or wait til 2.6.30, and rename that to 3.0. -- Hilsen Harald. -- 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