Re: [RFC] Putting the date back into utsname::version
Ben Hutchings <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Here are examples of the old, new and possible alternative formats using
> likely maximum-length components:
> old: #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Tue Mar 21 23:12:08 GMT 2023 
> new: #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Debian 9.99~rc99-9~experimental.9 
> alt: #1 SMP PREEMPT RT 2023-02-21 Debian 9.99~rc99-9~experimental.9 
> alt: #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Debian 9.99~rc99-9~experimental.9 (2023-02-21) 
> We could perhaps shorten 'experimental' to 'exp', which would leave
> stable security updates with the longest version strings and allow for:
> alt: #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Tue Mar 21 2023 Debian 9.99.99-9codename9 
> alt: #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Debian 9.99.99-9codename9 (Tue Mar 21 2023) 
> Would anyone like to argue in favour of any particular alternative?
I will at least make a plea for ISO dates rather than the specific date
format in the last two examples.
I think my favorite is the last example, with an ISO date (2023-03-21).
Shortening experimental to exp seems like a good idea anyway.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>