On 17 July 2012 12:05, Wouter Verhelst <wou...@grep.be> wrote: > "Chris NS" <ibisbase...@gmail.com> writes: > >> +1 for a "2.breaking.bugfix" scheme. I've used this scheme on >> anything serious for years, and know many others who have; so it is >> not only popular but also quite tried and proven. Not for every >> project, of course (although I don't understand why the Linux kernel >> team dropped it with 3.x), but for the majority it seems to work >> wonders. > > They haven't, on the contrary. > > 3.x is a release with new features > 3.x.y is a bugfix release. > > Before the move to 3.x, this was 2.6.x and 2.6.x.y -- which was > confusing, because many people thought there was going to be a 2.8 at > some point when there wasn't. >
The reason for the move to 3.x is in the announcement. http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/21/455 But yes, it simplifies the stable vs development kernel versioning. -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';