Subject: Re: Tangent: Current-kernel revision naming...
To: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Andrew Brown <email@example.com>
Date: 02/15/2000 19:08:47
># >On the naming convention for releases, should we perhaps start calling
># >them Major.Minor.Patchlevel.NumericRelease? Or would it be too confusing
># >to reference 1.4S as 126.96.36.199 (vs 1.4.1)?
># it should probably be actually be 188.8.131.52, but i'm not sure it'll be
># a popular idea. :)
>I figure 184.108.40.206 because 1.4S does NOT branch off 1.4.1, but rather
>off 1.4 as a development branch. The reason I thought it would be mis-
>leading is because 220.127.116.11 would appear to be a lesser rev than
>1.4.1, even though 1.4.*0*, specifically (vs 1.4) could be taken as a
actually...1.4.1 (aka 18.104.22.168) branches off 1.4 (aka 22.214.171.124), and 1.4
(aka 126.96.36.199) continues on as 1.4A (aka 188.8.131.52) and 1.4B (aka
184.108.40.206), etc. but it would really look funny.
>The alternative is to release as major.minor.numeric.patchlevel, so
>what is now 1.4.1 would be called 220.127.116.11, and 1.4.1 would be the branch
>from current, but that's not entirely sensible either.
i thought that was what i said. <scratches head>
>[I'm sorry -- I guess it is kind of silly.]
sort of. :)
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
firstname.lastname@example.org * "ah! i see you have the internet
email@example.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
firstname.lastname@example.org * "information is power -- share the wealth."