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:	Sat, 8 Jan 2011 09:49:26 -0500 (EST)
From:	"Artem S. Tashkinov" <t.artem@...os.com>
To:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>
Subject: Re: On Linux numbering scheme

----- "Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:

> 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?
> 

This will break too many user space scripts/applications which expect
2.x.x.x numbers.

Best wishes,

Artem
--
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/