Re: [kernel.org users] XZ Migration discussion

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 01:25:34PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:03:26AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > 3* Create a new subdirectory for every 2.6.x kernel, and move all the
> > > related files there. This would shrink the main index drastically, and
> > > each subdirectory would have a reasonable size (except maybe 2.6.16 and
> > > 2.6.27.) Oddly enough this has been done for the files under testing/
> > > already, so I am curious why we don't do it for the release files (and
> > > the testing/incr/ files, while we're at it.)
> > 
> > Well, part of the reason why is that we're functionally "stuck" on 2.6;
> > a prefix which really has lost all meaning.
> > 
> > It might open up the question if we shouldn't just do a Solaris and drop
> > the leading 2 (so the next kernel would be 6.33) or call the kernel
> > after that 3.0 instead of 2.6.34, and then 3.1 instead of 2.6.35.
> 
> Damn, we forgot to have that fight at Kernel Summit last year.

No one wanted to take it on :(

> I'm in favour of the 3.0 / 3.1 / 3.2 with stable@ being responsible for
> 3.0.1, 3.0.2, 3.1.1, etc.

I'm in favor of almost _anything_ new, the current numbering scheme
drives me crazy, but then, I'm the one having to deal with it more than
anyone these days...

thanks,

greg k-h