| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:47:10 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@....pp.se> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org 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, 2.6.29.1, 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 2.6.29.2 is a bit cumbersome, I'd much prefer 3.0.2. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@....pp.se -- 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