linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <48F98DE2.8030205@kernel.org>
Date:	Sat, 18 Oct 2008 00:18:58 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
CC:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

Greg KH wrote:
>>
>> I think it's both visually cumbersome and has the problem that it is harder 
>> to predict future releases.  The first problem can be dealt with by simply 
>> subtracting 2000 from the year (Altera uses this scheme for their EDA 
>> tools, and I didn't realize it for quite a while because it looked so 
>> natural), but the second is still a problem.
> 
> What is the "problem" of predicting future releases?  What relies on the
> actual number being "correct" some random time in the future?
> 

We already have the 2.6.28-rc series; and we are already talking about 
2.6.29 features.

We *really* don't want 2008.3-rc4 to be followed by 2009.1-rc5.  That is 
the kind of stuff that make script makers want to strangle developers 
alive with their own intestines.

	-hpa
--
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/