Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

["John Stoffel" <john@stoffel.org>]

>>>>> "Theodore" == Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> writes:

Theodore> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 04:26:19PM +0200, markus reichelt wrote:
>> Why not just keep it? It has worked so far, and from a strictly
>> end-user point of view I cannot see any advantages at all with a new
>> scheme. The ideas mentioned so far don't cut it either.

Theodore> I'd cast a vote for keeping it as well.  "2.6" is actually a
Theodore> great marker so that people know that it's highly likely the
Theodore> version number is for the Linux kernel.  Contrast "I'm
Theodore> running 2.6.27" versus "I'm running 27" (huh, what does that
Theodore> mean?) or "I'm running the 27 kernel" or "I'm running Linux
Theodore> kernel version 27" or worse yet "I'm running 2008-03".
Theodore> Something like "2.6.27" is just easier to say, and less
Theodore> prone to misunderstanding/confusion.

I dunno... I like the *idea* of a date string, but maybe it needs to
be in parallel and not replace the 2.6.x we have currently?  God knows
a bunch of stuff is going to break when we get to 2.6.100 or 2.>6 or
3.x or whatever.  

But, having something which encodes the release date into the version
string would be useful as well.  On my home debian box I get:

> uname -a
Linux jfsnew 2.6.26 #17 SMP Mon Jul 21 18:58:42 EDT 2008 i686 GNU/Linux

So having "2.6.16 (2008/MM/DD) #17 ..." would be great with me.  But
people would need to think it through more carefully...

John