Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

[el es <el_es_cr@yahoo.co.uk>]

Greg KH <greg <at> kroah.com> writes:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> You brought this topic up a few months ago, and passed it off as
> something we would discuss at the kernel summit.  But that never
> happened, so I figured I'd bring it up again here.
> 
> So, as someone who constantly is dealing with kernel version numbers all
> the time with the -stable trees, our current numbering scheme is a pain
> a times.  How about this proposal instead?
> 
> We number the kernel based on the year, and the numbers of releases we
> have done this year:
> 	YEAR.NUMBER.MINOR_RELEASE
> 

I strongly disagree about the full year indication in front ;) 

and bring up my older idea of

the scheme to be s.yy.ww.tt, that is :

s - series, as it is now (freedom to Linus to declare a whole 'new generation'

;) if he wanted  )

yy - two (in a hundred years, three) digits of the year

Now the interesting part begins which is

ww - the number of the week of the release. This will be between 1 and 52 (53)

tt - the number of the week of stable release. As above.

It is:
- most similar to the scheme used so far,
- informative : the ww and tt numbers are the week numbers of when the actual

release HAPPENED, not when it is predicted.

- easy to put some automation into it (git release HEAD now ) could branch the

current and rename it accordingly (not that I know how to do it, just

imagination)

- (mod) in case there are more than one release in a week, letters could be 

used (e.g. 2.08.44[a..z]) in as many count as needed (2.08.45deadbeef.50sodead 
)(or put the git commit indication there ?)

- in case the stable releases go forth into next year or over, the stable team

puts additional .yy.ww instead of their own .tt (like 2.08.45.09.05) (yes I know

it is long)

- the -rc releases go as usual beginning with latest mainline release

(2.08.45-rcX, X being a number as it is now)

- dubbing behavior of silicon manufacturers who print the actual week number of

production onto their chips - imagine looking at a chip and quick glancing at

the kernel version number and _knowing_ it should be OK ;)


My £0.02 ;)
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Let the bike-shedding begin!
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 

Lukasz