D versionning

[Iain Buclaw]

On 17 July 2012 12:05, Wouter Verhelst <wouter at grep.be> wrote:
> "Chris NS" <ibisbasenji at 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';