Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[Monchi Abbad]

Also just kidding. But on the other hand: what will be the next version ?
Anyone in for a pool ;-P

Monchi.
--
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:33:42AM -0500, Dan Brow wrote:
> Just kidding, great work on 2.6.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Can't wait for 2.8 or 3.0

[Dan Brow]

Just kidding, great work on 2.6.

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[Dan Brow]

Maybe Linux XP? Ok, please don't flame me.

On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 01:30, Monchi Abbad wrote:
> Also just kidding. But on the other hand: what will be the next version ?
> Anyone in for a pool ;-P
> 
> Monchi.
> --
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:33:42AM -0500, Dan Brow wrote:
> > Just kidding, great work on 2.6.
> > 
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[Maciej Zenczykowski]

> Also just kidding. But on the other hand: what will be the next version ?
> Anyone in for a pool ;-P

Why the next version will be 2.6.1 :) it's pretty obvious.

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[John Bradford]

Quote from Maciej Zenczykowski <maze@cela.pl>:
> > Also just kidding. But on the other hand: what will be the next version ?
> > Anyone in for a pool ;-P
> 
> Why the next version will be 2.6.1 :) it's pretty obvious.

I think we should consider introduce a policy of having .*beaver.*
names for each 2.6.x release, and maybe drop the version numbers
altogether during 2.7.

John.

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[Maciej Soltysiak]

> I think we should consider introduce a policy of having .*beaver.*
> names for each 2.6.x release, and maybe drop the version numbers
> altogether during 2.7.
How about a naming policy of something going along this:
Stag (2.2)
Wolfling (2.4)
Beaver (2.6)
Rooster (2.7)
Ostrich (2.8)
Sharkey (2.9)
Cheetah (3.0)

And all having names of animals. Like in Croatia, their local currency
has only pictures of animals and plants on the bills and coins.

Pretty nice and neutral. Also codenames might make it
sound less technical for buzzword-orientated folks in the media
and other users.

Oh, and you would know which is better becase you would
here one or the other more often in terms of something new and fresh.


Regards,
Maciej

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[bill davidsen]

In article <00a501c3c564$fd4a91f0$0e25fe0a@southpark.ae.poznan.pl>,
Maciej Soltysiak <solt@dns.toxicfilms.tv> wrote:
| > I think we should consider introduce a policy of having .*beaver.*
| > names for each 2.6.x release, and maybe drop the version numbers
| > altogether during 2.7.
| How about a naming policy of something going along this:
| Stag (2.2)
| Wolfling (2.4)
| Beaver (2.6)
| Rooster (2.7)
| Ostrich (2.8)
| Sharkey (2.9)
| Cheetah (3.0)
| 
| And all having names of animals. Like in Croatia, their local currency
| has only pictures of animals and plants on the bills and coins.

The stable releases should have the names of nice non-threatening
herbivores, like beaver, and the development trees should have names of
omnivores. Subreleases can have an adjective prepended, like singing,
dancing, horny, constipated... well, maybe someone else should do the
naming of subversions ;-)

A good job by any name.
-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[Rob Landley]

On Thursday 18 December 2003 00:30, Monchi Abbad wrote:
> Also just kidding. But on the other hand: what will be the next version ?
> Anyone in for a pool ;-P

Depends.  Is Linus allowed to bet? :)

Rob

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[Dan Brow]

I am not putting any money in if he is. :=>

On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 16:03, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 18 December 2003 00:30, Monchi Abbad wrote:
> > Also just kidding. But on the other hand: what will be the next version ?
> > Anyone in for a pool ;-P
> 
> Depends.  Is Linus allowed to bet? :)
> 
> Rob
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[Maciej Zenczykowski]

> The names could be chosen alphabetically.  Rooster was mentioned for
> 2.7, but since 2.6 is beaver, I propose cock, as 'c' follows 'b'.

I don't think cock is politically correct and marketing safe.  Even 
chicken is better :)

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[Andrew Walrond]

On Thursday 18 Dec 2003 7:37 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
> You mean a variety of the small winged creatures that spend the days
> singing in the trees, aka birds?

Absolutely. Blue tits are my favourites. Very common during the cold winter 
months in the UK.

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[Måns Rullgård]

Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:

> On Thursday 18 Dec 2003 4:38 pm, Chris Meadors wrote:
>>
>> The names could be chosen alphabetically.  Rooster was mentioned for
>> 2.7, but since 2.6 is beaver, I propose cock, as 'c' follows 'b'.
>
> Being more than happy with beaver, I don't think I'd getting
> involved with de- bugging cock. I'd probably wait until Tit is
> released. I've always been fond of tits.

You mean a variety of the small winged creatures that spend the days
singing in the trees, aka birds?

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[Andrew Walrond]

On Thursday 18 Dec 2003 4:38 pm, Chris Meadors wrote:
>
> The names could be chosen alphabetically.  Rooster was mentioned for
> 2.7, but since 2.6 is beaver, I propose cock, as 'c' follows 'b'.

Being more than happy with beaver, I don't think I'd getting involved with de-
bugging cock. I'd probably wait until Tit is released. I've always been fond 
of tits.

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[John Dee]

see, that's the beauty of it. :)

Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> 
>>>The names could be chosen alphabetically.  Rooster was mentioned for
>>>2.7, but since 2.6 is beaver, I propose cock, as 'c' follows 'b'.
>>
>>Oh great. 
>>So now we've progressed from flamewars to cock fighting on LKML. 
> 
> 
> Are you two aware of which body parts are sometimes called
> "beaver" and "cock"?
> 
> -- Jamie
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[Jamie Lokier]

Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > The names could be chosen alphabetically.  Rooster was mentioned for
> > 2.7, but since 2.6 is beaver, I propose cock, as 'c' follows 'b'.
> 
> Oh great. 
> So now we've progressed from flamewars to cock fighting on LKML. 

Are you two aware of which body parts are sometimes called
"beaver" and "cock"?

-- Jamie

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[Martin J. Bligh]

>> > I think we should consider introduce a policy of having .*beaver.*
>> > names for each 2.6.x release, and maybe drop the version numbers
>> > altogether during 2.7.
>> > 
>> > John.
>> 
>> Sounds like a cool idea, but how are we supposed to know which "name"
>> is newer?
> 
> The names could be chosen alphabetically.  Rooster was mentioned for
> 2.7, but since 2.6 is beaver, I propose cock, as 'c' follows 'b'.

Oh great. 
So now we've progressed from flamewars to cock fighting on LKML. 

M.

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[Balram Adlakha]

John Bradford (john@grabjohn.com) wrote:

> I think we should consider introduce a policy of having .*beaver.*
> names for each 2.6.x release, and maybe drop the version numbers
> altogether during 2.7.
>
> John.

Sounds like a cool idea, but how are we supposed to know which "name"
is newer?

-- 
 -
( ) ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail 
 X
/ \ 

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[Chris Meadors]

On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 12:06, Balram Adlakha wrote:
> John Bradford (john@grabjohn.com) wrote:
> 
> > I think we should consider introduce a policy of having .*beaver.*
> > names for each 2.6.x release, and maybe drop the version numbers
> > altogether during 2.7.
> >
> > John.
> 
> Sounds like a cool idea, but how are we supposed to know which "name"
> is newer?

The names could be chosen alphabetically.  Rooster was mentioned for
2.7, but since 2.6 is beaver, I propose cock, as 'c' follows 'b'.

-- 
Chris

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[bill davidsen]

In article <200312181149.25571.grahame@notofthisearth.freeserve.co.uk>,
Grahame White  <grahame@notofthisearth.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
| On Thursday 18 December 2003 17:06, Balram Adlakha wrote:
| > John Bradford (john@grabjohn.com) wrote:
| > > I think we should consider introduce a policy of having .*beaver.*
| > > names for each 2.6.x release, and maybe drop the version numbers
| > > altogether during 2.7.
| > >
| > > John.
| >
| > Sounds like a cool idea, but how are we supposed to know which "name"
| > is newer?
| 
| Well let's see there could be :
| 
| 2.beaver.rolling
| 2.beaver.sparking
| 2.beaver.toking
| 2.beaver.passing
| 2.beaver.stoned
| 2.beaver.tripping

I take back what I just said about letting someone else name the
subversions ;-)
-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[Grahame White]

On Thursday 18 December 2003 17:06, Balram Adlakha wrote:
> John Bradford (john@grabjohn.com) wrote:
> > I think we should consider introduce a policy of having .*beaver.*
> > names for each 2.6.x release, and maybe drop the version numbers
> > altogether during 2.7.
> >
> > John.
>
> Sounds like a cool idea, but how are we supposed to know which "name"
> is newer?

Well let's see there could be :

2.beaver.rolling
2.beaver.sparking
2.beaver.toking
2.beaver.passing
2.beaver.stoned
2.beaver.tripping

Grahame

Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??

[Vojtech Pavlik]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:06:28PM +0000, Balram Adlakha wrote:
> John Bradford (john@grabjohn.com) wrote:
> 
> > I think we should consider introduce a policy of having .*beaver.*
> > names for each 2.6.x release, and maybe drop the version numbers
> > altogether during 2.7.
> >
> > John.
> 
> Sounds like a cool idea, but how are we supposed to know which "name"
> is newer?

Based on a logical storyline? ;)

-- 
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs, SuSE CR