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  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:   Sun, 24 Feb 2019 13:54:49 +0100
From:   Greg KH <>
To:     Federico Vaga <>
Cc:     Zenghui Yu <>,,, LKML <>,
        Andrew Morton <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/process/howto: Update for 4.x -> 5.x

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 11:16:56AM +0100, Federico Vaga wrote:
> hello,
> I have just a general observation for the community, not related to the 
> content of this patch, but related with the idea behind.
> Is it really important to specify the major release number in the documents? . 
> Can't we just use a generic x.y.z, or a more generic statement?
> When you open a documentation page like
> you will see the release number in the top left corner, which implies that 
> what you read is (should be) valid for that version. And if you read from the 
> sources you should know which version you checked out, and if you don't you
> can always verify.
> I do not see the added value of having those numbers in the documents, unless 
> the purpose is to highlight some specific exceptions.
> Am I missing some important reasons that justify these numbers?

Nothing really, it's just "history".  Given that the "major" number only
changes every 3-4 years, it's not all that big of a deal.

If you can think of a way to write these documents such that they do not
depend on a version number at all, I'm sure no one would object to those


greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists