Posted Sep 4, 2008 15:15 UTC (Thu) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263)
In reply to: Linux 3.0? by stijn
Parent article: Linux 3.0?
>The idea of 2008 in a version number does not appeal to me, those first two bytes are really wasted.
Please thought the same in the 20th century and used two-digit year numbers everywhere (like 24.12.21 to denote 1921-Dec-24), and that backfired when it approached the year 2000. Truncating a year number to two-digits is like retrieving the short SHA for a git commitit only works at this point in time. The next commit may cause the length of the shortest possible unique SHA to increase, which is why SHAs in commits are often not abbreviated at all, just to *keep* it unambiguous for the future.