Re: note on "2.4 is deprecated"
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2006, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:28:56AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> That is stretching it. The third component of a version is
> >> hardly a "major" revision.
> > Why?
> Component in a version are major.minor.sub. Now, given that
> Linux 1.0 was ages ago, one could conced that the versioning is
Upstream declared 2.6 a constant for the time being, so the third
component remains the only one to make a version distinction.
> But claiming that 2.5.16 is majorly different from
> 2.5.15 when it comews to support is a facile argument that most
> people are not gonna buy.
We already saw that for 2.6.12 -> .13.