| 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: <200810162026.57857.rob@landley.net> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:26:57 -0500 From: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net> To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change On Wednesday 15 October 2008 19:25:09 Greg KH wrote: > Hi, > > You brought this topic up a few months ago, and passed it off as > something we would discuss at the kernel summit. But that never > happened, so I figured I'd bring it up again here. > > So, as someone who constantly is dealing with kernel version numbers all > the time with the -stable trees, our current numbering scheme is a pain > a times. How about this proposal instead? I don't understand, what exactly is a pain about it? (I can't tell why a new one is better if you don't say what you're objecting to about the old one...) > Benefits of this is it more accuratly represents to people just how old > the kernel they are currently running is (2.6.9 would be have been > 2004.9.0 on this naming scheme.) Benefits is plural, but I seem to have missed the other ones. Or is that the only issue, wanting to put a more prominent "best if used by" date in the name ala Windows 95? Rob -- 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