| |||||||||||||
Date basedDate basedPosted May 24, 2011 5:08 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: Date based by neilbrown Parent article: 2.8.0?
name it based on when the merge window for that release opened. there's no ambiguity there.
(Log in to post comments)
Date based Posted May 24, 2011 5:37 UTC (Tue) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]
While I think that most reasonable people would prefer a date based versioning scheme I think the marketing departments of all the big LF members would hate it.
Just imagine:
Date based Posted May 24, 2011 5:57 UTC (Tue) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]
> While I think that most reasonable people would prefer a date based versioning scheme
I would have thought so to, but at the kernel summit when Linus ran his "straw poll" (https://lwn.net/Articles/413061/) he didn't even ask for votes for that option as he assumed almost no-one would want it (and based on the votes he got for the other options, there is a fair chance he was right).
Date based Posted May 24, 2011 6:19 UTC (Tue) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]
Hmm, that LWN article just states that kernel devs were against changing from 2.6 to something else. The way I read it it doesn't say that date based was less popular than anything else (besides staying with the current scheme)
Date based Posted May 24, 2011 6:35 UTC (Tue) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]
The article glosses over the boring details.
The way I remember it, there where 3 options:
Vote went:
Date based Posted May 24, 2011 6:16 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
just imagine,
wouldn't that be nice?
|
|||||||||||||