On Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 18:12:28 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
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.
I don't recall where I first got my information, but clearly I
was mistaken. And I'm happy to have been so. Maybe if I
actually kept up more with the info on kernel releases I'd have
known... alas.
-- Chris NS
