On 4/16/2018 5:55 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
> > The current kernel numbering scheme makes no sense at all because the
>> first two numbers don't represent anything at all. They had some meaning
>> back in the 1.x 2.x 3.x days but then with the introduction of the new
>> r
On 4/16/2018 5:55 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
> > The current kernel numbering scheme makes no sense at all because the
>> first two numbers don't represent anything at all. They had some meaning
>> back in the 1.x 2.x 3.x days but then with the introduction of the new
>> r
> The current kernel numbering scheme makes no sense at all because the
> first two numbers don't represent anything at all. They had some meaning
> back in the 1.x 2.x 3.x days but then with the introduction of the new
> rolling development model, they became worthless.
>
>
> The current kernel numbering scheme makes no sense at all because the
> first two numbers don't represent anything at all. They had some meaning
> back in the 1.x 2.x 3.x days but then with the introduction of the new
> rolling development model, they became worthless.
>
>
Hello all,
I know this proposal has already been made great many times but I'd like
to repeat it and have a healthy discussion about it.
The current kernel numbering scheme makes no sense at all because the
first two numbers don't represent anything at all. They had some meaning
back
Hello all,
I know this proposal has already been made great many times but I'd like
to repeat it and have a healthy discussion about it.
The current kernel numbering scheme makes no sense at all because the
first two numbers don't represent anything at all. They had some meaning
back
6 matches
Mail list logo
