D versionning

[Chris NS]

On Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 18:12:28 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> 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.

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