On Tue, 24 May 2011, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On 23.05.2011 13:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar mingo@elte.hu wrote:
I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before cutting 3.0.0! :-)
So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0", not "3.0.0" - the stable team would get the third digit rather than the fourth one.
What about strictly 3 part versions? Just add a .0.
3.0.0 - Release Kernel 3.0 3.0.1 - Stable 1 3.0.2 - Stable 2 3.1.0 - Release Kernel 3.1 3.1.1 - Stable 1 ...
Biggest problem is likely version phobics that get pimples when they see trailing zeros. ;-)
since there are always issues discovered with a new kernel is released (which is why the -stable kernels exist), being wary of .0 kernels is not neccessarily a bad thing.
I still think a date based approach would be the best.
since people are worried about not knowing when a final release will happen, base the date on when the merge window opened or closed (always known at the time of the first -rc kernel)
in the thread on lwn, people pointed out that the latest 2.6.32 kernel would still be a 2009.12.X which doesn't reflect the fact that it was released this month. My suggestion for that is to make the X be the number of months (or years.months if you don't like large month values) between the merge window and the release of the -stable release. This would lead to a small problem when there are multiple -stable releases in a month, but since that doesn't last very long I don't see a real problem with just incramenting the month into the future in those cases.
David Lang