[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101022095333.GA10047@fysh.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:53:33 +0100
From: Athanasius <link@...gy.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: kevin granade <kevin.granade@...il.com>,
"Artem S. Tashkinov" <t.artem@...os.com>
Subject: Re: On Linux numbering scheme
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 03:00:06AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 07:06:23PM -0500, kevin granade wrote:
>
> > Any particular reason not to continue the date-oriented format and
> > have the third number be the numerical representation of the month
> > rather than an incrementing numbering of the releases? It would still
> > be monotonically increasing, which is the only requirement, right?
>
> Why do we need to change it, anyway?
/agree
For the most part it's only distribution maintainers that see or care
about the kernel version number anyway. Anyone else knows what they're
getting into if they compile a kernel themselves, and otherwise is more
likely to say they're using "Linux 10.10" right now ....
Having said that I had a lovely suggestion in the last round on this
topic which would allow you to know when a kernel was released just from
its version number :).
--
- Athanasius = Athanasius(at)miggy.org / http://www.miggy.org/
Finger athan(at)fysh.org for PGP key
"And it's me who is my enemy. Me who beats me up.
Me who makes the monsters. Me who strips my confidence." Paula Cole - ME
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists