Matthew Dillon wrote:With that choice, I'd go for 1.12, but then our __Version is totally broken. Hasso's 2.2 isn't bad either, fooling people nicely :) I'd actually drop the "1." completely, and make it 12-RELEASE, followed by 13-DEVEL. I mean, what constitutes "enough" change to go from 1.* to 2.*, then to 3.*, etc.? That's quite arbitrary. Dropping that digit would avoid that alltogether. Not an easy decision... cheers simon -- Serve - BSD +++ RENT this banner advert +++ ASCII Ribbon /"\ Work - Mac +++ space for low €€€ NOW!1 +++ Campaign \ / Party Enjoy Relax | http://dragonflybsd.org Against HTML \ Dude 2c 2 the max ! http://golden-apple.biz Mail + News / \
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 006/196] Chinese: add translation of oops-tracing.txt |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| James Bottomley | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Borislav Petkov | 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found... |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
