On 05/26/2011 01:21 AM, Tony Luck wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> So if you combine all the above: >> >> D. Y. N >> D - Is the decade since birth (1991 not 1990) >> Y - is the year in the decade so you have 3.1.x, 3.2.x, .. 3.10.x, 4.1.X and so on >> Nice incremental number. >> N - The Linus release of this Year. So this 3rd one goes up to 4 most probably. >> >> Linus always likes, and feels very poetic about the Christmas version release. >> He hates it when once it slipped into the next year. So now he gets to increment >> the second digit as a bonus. >> >> The 2nd digit gets to start on a *one*, never zero and goes up to *10*, to symbolize >> the 1991 birth. And we never have .zero quality, right? >> >> The first Digit gets incremented on decade from 1991 so on 2011 and not 2010 > > This is clearly the best suggestion so far - small numbers, somewhat > date related (but without stuffing a "2011." on the front). No ".0" > releases, ever. > > But best of all it defines now when we will switch to 4.x.y and 5.x.y > so we don't have to keep having this discussion whenever someone thinks > that the numbers are getting "too big" (well perhaps when we get to the > tenth decade or so :-) > > So the only thing left to argue is whether the upcoming release should > be numbered "3.1.1" as the first release in the first year of the 3rd > decade ... or whether we should count 2.6.37 .. 2.6.39 as the first > three releases this year and thus we ought to start with "3.1.4" (so we > start with "pi"!). > Yes, Yes I like this a lot. I love pi, thanks. Boaz > Linus: If you go with this, you should let Boaz set the new "NAME" > as a prize for such an inspired solution. > > -Tony -- 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
