linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] docs: Update version number from 5.x to 6.x in README.rst

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]

Message-ID: <87a67syxa0.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
Date:   Thu, 25 Aug 2022 12:48:39 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: Update version number from 5.x to 6.x in README.rst

Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com> writes:

> A quick 'grep "5\.x" . -R' on Documentation shows that README.rst,
> 2.Process.rst and applying-patches.rst all mention the version number "5.x"
> for kernel releases.
>
> As the next release will be version 6.0, updating the version number to 6.x
> in README.rst seems reasonable.
>
> The description in 2.Process.rst is just a description of recent kernel
> releases, it was last updated in the beginning of 2020, and can be
> revisited at any time on a regular basis, independent of changing the
> version number from 5 to 6. So, there is no need to update this document
> now when transitioning from 5.x to 6.x numbering.
>
> The document applying-patches.rst is probably obsolete for most users
> anyway, a reader will sufficiently well understand the steps, even it
> mentions version 5 rather than version 6. So, do not update that to a
> version 6.x numbering scheme.
>
> Update version number from 5.x to 6.x in README.rst only.

I've gone ahead and applied this.

For the other files:

 - I don't think 2.Process.rst needs any immediate attention.  We could
   change the wording from "recent release history" to "The release
   history in early 2022 looked like:" or something like that.  There is
   no reason why it has to be the latest releases.

 - applying-patches.rst should just go.  I didn't prevail last time I
   tried to make that point, but I still don't think that we help
   anybody by dragging 1990's instructions around now.

Thanks,

jon