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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:47:10 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Mikael Abrahamsson <>
Subject: Re: 2.6.28-rc1 --> 2.8.0-rc1; 2.6.27.y --> 2.6.28 [Re: [RFC] Kernel
 version numbering scheme change]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008, Dominik Brodowski wrote:

> Well, Linus hasn't yet changed SUBLEVEL or EXTRAVERSION[*]. But Adrian 
> has already stated that he will support what is known as 2.6.27 for a 
> long time. What about Linus naming the next release 2.8.0 (and move on 
> with 2.8.1, 2.8.2, ... with no special meaning to the numbers), so 
> instead of 2.6.28-rc1 it's 2.8.0-rc1. And once Adrian takes over from 
> the -stable team, he could release 2.6.28, 2.6.29 and so on when he 
> thinks a new minor number is appropriate, such as Willy intends to 
> release 2.4.37.

Unless we change the meaning of the numbers, I see little reason to bump 
to 2.8.

The only reason for change would be to merge 2.6 into 3, so we don't need 
2.6.29,, but instead we go to 3.0, 3.0.1, 3.0.2 and then 
3.1-rc1 becomes 3.1 and 3.1.1 is the next patch of it, and then 
3.2-rc1 etc. I don't see a problem to go over 9 on the second number 
either, so 3.23-rc1 is fine.

Makes it one less number to describe what kernel one is talking about. 
Saying is a bit cumbersome, I'd much prefer 3.0.2.

Mikael Abrahamsson    email:
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists