[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48FC1727.4030403@zytor.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:29:11 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@....ic.unicamp.br>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
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
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> +1
>
> Not that I care one way or the other. It's just that I don't see how
> your response bears any relationship with the point Greg made. It's
> just a distraction. We're talking about how to label releases, not
> about guessing the release date of a kernel months ahead. One you
> label it, it stays that way.
>
Uhm, so what happens when a release starts with an -rc stage intended
for 2008 release, and then comes out in 2009? You either have to leave
it at 2008, which would be confusing (I think this is what M$ did in at
least one case), or you have to have an in-release-cycle change.
Plus, of course, it makes it hard to talk about future releases.
-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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists