In article <20080719080002.GA11272@isi.edu> you wrote:Actually he said rename 2.6.28 to 2.8.0 or rename 2.6.29 to 2.9.0 or rename 2.6.30 to 3.0.0 i.e. .. whatever you are doing now, just drop the first two numbers (the "2.6" bit) since they seem to be constant. I don't know where the idea you propose above came from, and I don't quite understand it either! Remember that Linus' only objective is to have smaller numbers, which may therefore 1) be memorable 2) be good advertising copy 3) be meaningful and that was the only intention of my scheme: "drop the constant bit". Peter --
| James Bottomley | Breakage caused by unreviewed patch in x86 tree |
| Andrew Morton | Re: POHMELFS high performance network filesystem. Transactions, failover, performa... |
| Randy Dunlap | Re: 2.6.25-rc5-mm1 (paravirt/vsmp/no PCI) |
| Arnd Hannemann | 2.6.24-rc8 hangs at mfgpt-timer |
| Theodore Ts'o | Re: SVGA-alphanum. modes |
| Joseph R. Pannon | More install questions |
| Paul Richards | Header files |
| Les Andrzejewski | X386/WD90C31/SUMSUNG SYNC MASTER 4 |
git: | |
| David Miller | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| David Miller | Re: iptables very slow after commit784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
