Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Peter T. Breuer <ptb@...>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Saturday, July 19, 2008 - 5:16 pm

On 08.07.19, Peter T. Breuer wrote:

	So you're saying that the formula is to drop the "2.6" and place
a period between the first and sedond digits of what's currently the
release number? OK, I hadn't interpreted it that way.  Does the sequence
continue like this?

... 9.9.0, 10.0.0, ...


	And the underlying problem is that there are only so many
small numbers.  Eventually, inevitably, constant bits accumulate in
front of the changing bits.

	Given the three criteria shown above, Linus' proposed scheme:

yyyy.r.s

seems best to me.  We know the year, it relates directly to common
experience and effectively is a small number (this year, last year,
two years ago... 0, 1, 2 years ago).

	There's the potential for cognitive dissonance if the linux
kernel takes a yyy.x format and the distrbutions also use yyyy.x, but
the two aren't the same?  e.g., what will people think if, say,
openSUSE 2009.2 contains linux kernel 2009.1?  Perhaps the
distibutions would synchronize to kernel releases as a consequence of
a revised kernel naming convention?

	There's the question of what to do if you plan on a end-of year
release, and it just doesn't happen.  I see three strategies, some of
which have been mentioned already in this thread:

1)	Retain the "yyyy.r" part, even though it's year yyyy+1 before the
	stable relese is issued.

	2008.3.rc5, 2008.3.rc6, [year 2009 arrives], 2008.3.rc7, 2008.3.0

2)	Drop  the "yyyy.r" and start over with rc1 for "yyyy+1.1".

	2008.3.rc5, 2008.3.rc6, [year 2009 arrives], 2009.1.rc1, 2009.1.0

3)	Drop  the "yyyy.r" in favor of "yyyy+1.1", but don't break the
	rc# numbering:

	2008.3.rc5, 2008.3.rc6, [year 2009 arrives], 2009.1.rc7, 2009.1.0


	The last varient seems strange on the surface, but I think it
would be easier in practice, because developers could refer to "rc5",
"rc6", "rc7", dropping the locally-constant bits will less potential
ambiguity than if the "rc#" sequence was interrupted.

					Craig Milo Rogers


--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Stoyan Gaydarov, (Mon Jul 14, 10:10 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Jul 14, 10:22 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Alan Cox, (Tue Jul 15, 8:38 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, H. Peter Anvin, (Tue Jul 15, 2:04 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Rene Herman, (Wed Jul 16, 12:22 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Peter T. Breuer, (Wed Jul 16, 5:34 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Rafael C. de Almeida, (Wed Jul 16, 2:55 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Rene Herman, (Wed Jul 16, 3:30 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Rene Herman, (Wed Jul 16, 3:17 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Cyrill Gorcunov, (Tue Jul 15, 10:24 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Tobias Brox, (Tue Jul 15, 12:36 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Byron Stanoszek, (Tue Jul 15, 10:07 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Lennart Sorensen, (Wed Jul 16, 5:14 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Alex Chiang, (Wed Jul 16, 8:03 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Lennart Sorensen, (Thu Jul 17, 8:38 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Alex Chiang, (Thu Jul 17, 4:02 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Andi Kleen, (Tue Jul 15, 6:10 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Lennart Sorensen, (Wed Jul 16, 5:11 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Linus Torvalds, (Tue Jul 15, 11:20 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Jul 15, 7:31 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Stoyan Gaydarov, (Mon Jul 14, 10:31 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Jul 14, 10:47 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Adrian Bunk, (Tue Jul 15, 4:43 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Adrian Bunk, (Thu Jul 17, 6:16 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Jan Engelhardt, (Wed Jul 16, 3:53 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Rene Herman, (Wed Jul 16, 3:57 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Charles grey wolf Banas, (Tue Jul 15, 2:06 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Kasper Sandberg, (Tue Jul 15, 8:41 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Alberto Gonzalez, (Tue Jul 15, 9:18 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Bernd Petrovitsch, (Tue Jul 15, 4:29 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Jul 15, 3:49 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Jan Engelhardt, (Thu Jul 17, 1:25 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Craig Milo Rogers, (Thu Jul 17, 3:56 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Jan Engelhardt, (Thu Jul 17, 4:21 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Craig Milo Rogers, (Sat Jul 19, 4:00 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Peter T. Breuer, (Sat Jul 19, 3:30 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Craig Milo Rogers, (Sat Jul 19, 5:16 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Peter T. Breuer, (Sat Jul 19, 7:10 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Rene Herman, (Sat Jul 19, 4:52 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Craig Milo Rogers, (Sat Jul 19, 4:49 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Rene Herman, (Sun Jul 20, 4:34 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Stefanos Harhalakis, (Sun Jul 20, 10:53 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, , (Sat Jul 19, 4:56 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Jan Engelhardt, (Sat Jul 19, 5:56 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, , (Mon Jul 14, 11:55 pm)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Willy Tarreau, (Tue Jul 15, 1:31 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Stoyan Gaydarov, (Tue Jul 15, 3:23 am)
Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?, Rafael C. de Almeida, (Tue Jul 15, 2:40 am)