| 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: <a8e1da0810161853m3bbd8c1hf7c2ed5adf4cc4d6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:53:04 +0800 From: "Dave Young" <hidave.darkstar@...il.com> To: "Theodore Tso" <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> wrote: > 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. Agree. Additionally, we can add some range to x.y.z such as: x: 1-9 y: 1-9 z: 1-30 so we can jumo to 2.7.1 after 2.6.30 -- Regards dave -- 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