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]

Date:	Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:58:41 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	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 Monday 20 October 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> Um, did you not get the memo 3 years ago saying we are changing our
> development model and there will not be a 2.7 development series?

Well, in theory we could resume the old numbering scheme again but
keep the current development model, in effect just inflating the
version numbers by one level:

2.6.28-rc1 -> 2.7.0
2.6.28-rc2 -> 2.7.1
2.6.28     -> 2.8.0 (perfect -- I've heard people informally call it
                     the two-eight release in the past instead of
                     two-six-twenty-eight)
2.6.28.1   -> 2.8.1
2.6.29-rc1 -> 2.9.0
2.6.29     -> 2.10.0 or 3.0.0 (depending on your taste)

This would be entirely consistent with how things have been since 1.0,
except that we have not had a 2.odd release in a long time.

	Arnd <><
--
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/