linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation/process/howto: Update for 4.x -> 5.x versioning

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:   Sun, 24 Feb 2019 13:54:49 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it>
Cc:     Zenghui Yu <zenghuiyu96@...il.com>, corbet@....net,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/process/howto: Update for 4.x -> 5.x
 versioning

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
> 
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/
> 
> 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
patches.

thanks,

greg k-h