I found this truly amusing, especially the comments: <http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/08/07/16/1310239.shtml>
Quoting: In a recent thread it was asked what it would take for an 'unstable' 2.7 development tree to be created, to which Linus replied: 'Nothing. I'm not going back to the old model. The new model is so much better that its not even worth entertaining as a theory to go back. That said, I_am_ considering changing just the numbering. Not to go back to the old model, but because a constantly increasing minor number leads to big numbers. I'm not all that thrilled with "26" as a number: it's hard to remember. I think the time-based releases (ie the "2 weeks of merge window until -rc1, followed by roughly two months of stabilization") has been so successful that I'd prefer to skip the version numbering model too. We don't do releases based on "features" any more, so why should we do version_numbering_ based on "features"? Needless to say, the comments are quite funny. As you know, the Axiom releases are "numbered" by Month-Year as in "May 2008". I've been releasing Axiom every 2 months for the last few years (modulo some storms) so the "version" refers to the month and year of the release. Development is done in git so particular versions can be exactly recovered from the git HEAD numbers. Tim _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
