Re: Kernel version : what about s.yy.ww.tt scheme ?

Previous thread: [PATCH 3/3] at91_mci: introduce per-mci-revision conditional code by Nicolas Ferre on Thursday, July 17, 2008 - 2:42 am. (3 messages)

Next thread: MMC: s3cmci.c fixes for section mismatch warnings by Ben Dooks on Thursday, July 17, 2008 - 3:54 am. (2 messages)
From: el es
Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008 - 3:38 am

Yes, master and stable accumulate the same patches, I know. Only master takes
new code, whereas -stable does not.

This however tells how long did it take to produce the -stable release out of
Linus's release ;) And it does not break the current habits - just abuses them a
bit ;) 
And tells you how long the version was around there without another -stable
release too. Just by looking onto the version string, quick, sortable in
meaningful way, all sorts of pluses there ;)

IMO, the kernel is so mature already, and the development is so fast, and the
changes not always so fundamental, that the version in the old sense becomes
irrelevant - it is not the 2.4->2.6 transition days any more ;) 



Regards,
Lukasz (btw sorry I forgot to sign myself last time ;)



--

From: Justin Mattock
Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008 - 7:27 am

What about how porsch does it
i.g. 911, 912, 913, 914

-- 
Justin P. Mattock
--

From: Jan Engelhardt
Date: Friday, July 18, 2008 - 2:12 am

What about how Peugeot does it
e.g. 306, 406, 206, 307, 407, 207, 308
--

From: Justin Mattock
Date: Friday, July 18, 2008 - 9:24 am

Those guys are really good at rally,
whats his name gilles pinichi(or something like that)

-- 
Justin P. Mattock
--

Previous thread: [PATCH 3/3] at91_mci: introduce per-mci-revision conditional code by Nicolas Ferre on Thursday, July 17, 2008 - 2:42 am. (3 messages)

Next thread: MMC: s3cmci.c fixes for section mismatch warnings by Ben Dooks on Thursday, July 17, 2008 - 3:54 am. (2 messages)