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:	Thu, 6 Jan 2011 09:59:13 +0100
From:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>
Cc:	"Artem S. Tashkinov" <t.artem@...os.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: On Linux numbering scheme

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 09:31, Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com> wrote:
>>   As time passes by, the Linux numbering scheme makes even less sense.
>>   Some time ago there was a discussion on LKML about a new numbering
>>   scheme but it didn't come to any positive conclusion and then the
>>   subject was forgotten entirely. Not meaning to raise a clamour here
>>   (and I suppose I represent a large group of Linux users here). I'm
>>   willing to suggest a numbering scheme which I hope will answer all
>>   known complaints and criticism.
>
> This seems to be a periodically recurrent topic on the list.
>
> If I've correctly understood all points of view, there are currently two
> groups of developers:
>
> 1. Those who want to maintain the current numbering scheme, because they
> feel comfortable with it, and because they can easily understand the
> number of releases between one release and another.
>
> 2. Those who prefer having a scheme somehow related to the date, so they
> can easily understand when a certain kernel has been released (i.e. how
> "old" it is).
>
> Does really exist a numbering scheme that can satisfy both groups of
> people ? Probably not.
>
> My only idea would be to maintain the usual numbering scheme, and just
> replace the second number (6) with the year of release.
>
> For example:
>
>        2.6.36 would be 2.10.36
>
>        2.6.37 would be 2.11.37
>
>        2.6.38 would be 2.11.38
>
>        and so on...
>
> This way, you put some information about the year of release without
> loosing all the benefits of the current scheme.
>
> But this means having two independent incremental numbers, which maybe
> is a too insane scheme.

Then why not drop the leading "2." completely?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
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/