From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755707Ab0BLVyy (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:54:54 -0500 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:48431 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755607Ab0BLVyw (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:54:52 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:54:03 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , lasse.collin@tukaani.org, linux-kernel , mirrors@kernel.org, users@kernel.org, "FTPAdmin Kernel.org" , Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [kernel.org users] XZ Migration discussion Message-ID: <20100212215403.GA29469@kroah.com> References: <4B744E13.8040004@kernel.org> <20100212150137.648dca7c@hyperion.delvare> <4B75A5FE.8020408@zytor.com> <20100212202534.GH11239@parisc-linux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100212202534.GH11239@parisc-linux.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 01:25:34PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:03:26AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > 3* Create a new subdirectory for every 2.6.x kernel, and move all the > > > related files there. This would shrink the main index drastically, and > > > each subdirectory would have a reasonable size (except maybe 2.6.16 and > > > 2.6.27.) Oddly enough this has been done for the files under testing/ > > > already, so I am curious why we don't do it for the release files (and > > > the testing/incr/ files, while we're at it.) > > > > Well, part of the reason why is that we're functionally "stuck" on 2.6; > > a prefix which really has lost all meaning. > > > > It might open up the question if we shouldn't just do a Solaris and drop > > the leading 2 (so the next kernel would be 6.33) or call the kernel > > after that 3.0 instead of 2.6.34, and then 3.1 instead of 2.6.35. > > Damn, we forgot to have that fight at Kernel Summit last year. No one wanted to take it on :( > I'm in favour of the 3.0 / 3.1 / 3.2 with stable@ being responsible for > 3.0.1, 3.0.2, 3.1.1, etc. I'm in favor of almost _anything_ new, the current numbering scheme drives me crazy, but then, I'm the one having to deal with it more than anyone these days... thanks, greg k-h