linux-kernel - Re: On Linux numbering scheme

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:	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)