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: <20081020203033.GB20788@kroah.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:30:33 -0700
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Steven Noonan <steven@...inklabs.net>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 10:45:05AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 02:44:09PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 08:47:23PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > And that's my point here, do we want to change the current numbering
> > > > scheme as people have expressed annoyances of the current one.
> > > 
> > > But any new scheme will be just as annoying to someone and it messes up
> > > existing documentation, understanding and risks breaking third party
> > > tools.
> > > 
> > > Is it really worth the hassle, plus we'll have to change again if we use
> > > date/times because once we are shipping Linux out to Alpha Centauri with
> > > colonists there will be serious problems trying to compute the effect of
> > > tau on release numbering ...
> > 
> > Sure, but by then, the 2.6.521 release will be out and we could fix it
> > up by finally going to 3.0 :)
> > 
> > Seriously, am I the only one that is getting annoyed by our version
> > numbers?  If so, I can live with it, but I got the feeling that I wasn't
> > alone here.
> 
> No you're not. I am too. Maybe we're both more annoyed than majority
> because we're mostly dealing with 4-numbers versions.
> 
> I remember having recently suggested someone to test 2.6.37, doing a
> confusion between 2.4.37 and 2.6.27. I have already tagged kernels
> with wrong versions, having to fix by hand afterwards. It's really
> cumbersome some times.

Yeah, I'm not the only one that has done that then :)

And yes, it is a pain to fix up.

> IMHO, having a small number of small digits is the way to go. Using
> 1 or 2 digits for the major and 1 for the minor is fine. After 3.9, you
> go to version 4.0. Anyway, there are so many changes between versions
> these days that any new versions could justify a major change (eg:
> check the size of the 2.6.27 patch).
> 
> With versions from 1.1 to 9.9, you can go as high as 88 versions,
> which is about 22 years of development at current pace. After that,
> we can simply turn to 10.0 and not break anything.
> 
> It's also easier for users. Check how many non-kernel techies around you
> know all 3 digits of the version they use. It's easier to remember 4.3
> than it is to remember 2.6.27.

I agree that would be nicer, and easier for everyone.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/