My Kernel version numbering system proposal
My Kernel version numbering system proposal
Posted Dec 6, 2008 22:25 UTC (Sat) by pr1268 (guest, #24648)In reply to: Stable kernel 2.6.27.8 by kragil
Parent article: Stable kernel 2.6.27.8
Version numbers are starting to suck.
Soon we will have 2.6.27.10.
Just looks ugly and has nearly no meaning.
Here's my proposed solution:
The major release number would be replaced with capital Roman numerals, i.e. I, II, III, IV, V, VI, etc.
The Intermediate version number would be replaced with capital letters from the Latin alphabet, i.e. A, B, C, D, etc.
The minor release number would remain as it is currently, i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.
The bugfix release (4th value) would be replaced with lower-case letters from the Greek alphabet, i.e. α, β, γ, etc.
Given this numbering scheme, the version released on 5 December 2008 would be II.F.27.θ, and this supersedes II.F.27.η.
Posted Dec 7, 2008 1:22 UTC (Sun)
by kragil (guest, #34373)
[Link] (1 responses)
But I still think something like 2008.3 and 2009.1 would be way nicer for recent kernels.
Just a quick test:
Ask some user how old 2.6.21 is?
Posted Dec 7, 2008 14:05 UTC (Sun)
by pr1268 (guest, #24648)
[Link]
Ask some user how old 2.6.21 is? It was released on 26 April 2007. The release dates are listed alongside the actual releases at http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/. But, I agree; not everyone would know to use that as a date versioning tool.
Posted Dec 15, 2008 21:16 UTC (Mon)
by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989)
[Link]
My Kernel version numbering system proposal
Most Linux user will have a hard time answering that. The current versioning is just unnecessary old cruft. It maybe not broken but it still needs fixing.
My Kernel version numbering system proposal
Most Linux user will have a hard time answering that.My Kernel version numbering system proposal