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
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:17:31 -0600
From:	Tim Gardner <>
To:	Greg KH <>
CC:	Kamal Mostafa <>,,,
Subject: Re: [3.13.y.z extended stable] Linux 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 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:
>>>> git://  linux-3.13.y-review
>>>> The review period for version 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 (
> 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

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 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.

Tim Gardner
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists