| 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 PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:17:31 -0600 From: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com> To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> CC: Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>, kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [3.13.y.z extended stable] Linux 3.13.11.7 stable review On 09/15/2014 07:26 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 07:18:35PM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote: >> On 09/15/2014 06:03 PM, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 03:06:50PM -0700, Kamal Mostafa wrote: >>>> This is the start of the review cycle for the Linux 3.13.11.7 stable kernel. >>>> >>>> This version contains 187 new patches, summarized below. The new patches are >>>> posted as replies to this message and also available in this git branch: >>>> >>>> http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=ubuntu/linux.git;h=linux-3.13.y-review;a=shortlog >>>> >>>> git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/linux.git linux-3.13.y-review >>>> >>>> The review period for version 3.13.11.7 will be open for the next three days. >>>> To report a problem, please reply to the relevant follow-up patch message. >>> >>> As I asked before, please change the name to not be x.y, it is confusing >>> for lots of people. >>> >>> Use the "normal" way of naming kernel releases, pick a few character >>> naming scheme please. >>> >> >> I think what Kamal said is that he would consider your request. I, >> however, don't think it wise to change version schemes mid-stream in an >> established series. > > Even if that "established series" is the thing that is causing > complaints? > >> Can you provide hard evidence that this version scheme is confusing lots >> of people ? I'm only aware of one complaint voiced by Peter Anvin at the >> kernel summit (http://lwn.net/Articles/608917/). > > Peter's complaint is one that I know of that is in the public record. > > So is mine. > > How many others do you need? > This is a seriously silly argument over an _opinion_ of what is "confusing", and so far I am not feeling moved by the number of contrary opinions. Our version scheme makes sense from a Debian perspective in that it indicates exactly when the Canonical branch was started. It also has the advantage of being distinguishable from the kernel.org version. I _want_ the consumer to be aware of where they have acquired their kernel sources (as if the git URL is insufficient). Frankly, if the version is an _enduring_ source of confusion, then perhaps the consumer should seek other endeavors. rtg -- Tim Gardner tim.gardner@...onical.com -- 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