Linus Torvalds wrote: > PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting > too big. I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that > this PS is going to result in more discussion than the rest, but when > the voices tell me to do things, I listen. Correct :) I would still prefer the version number change to something like 2011.0 - already proposed at http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Kernel_Release_Numbering_Redux I don't think that it is reasonable to say that it is bad because third party scripts would break - they would break anyway (I would bet that many of them don't expect to see 3.x anyway). And changing now to 3.0 and then incrementing the second one everytime for 10 years will also lead to something like 3.56.7. I would also say that defining the release number using the time of the merge window start/end is easy understandable. "2.6.40" would be the third development cycle this year aka v2011.2 or v2011.2.0 when the patchlevel should always be included. -- Emil Langrock -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
