Author r.david.murray
Recipients Arfrever, Ramchandra Apte, amaury.forgeotdarc, barry, djc, dmalcolm, doko, ezio.melotti, foom, gagern, haypo, jwilk, lemburg, loewis, merwok, petri.lehtinen, pitrou, python-dev, r.david.murray, rosslagerwall, sandro.tosi
Date 2011-08-19.14:26:14
SpamBayes Score 2.47021e-06
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1313763975.65.0.0393608400438.issue12326@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
MAL wrote:

> As already mentioned, the diff between Linux 2.x and 3.x will
> grow over time and while there may not be much to see now,
> things will change in the coming years.

The only way I can read this argument that makes any sense to me is that you are arguing for a precise build-time OS string.  If it is supposed to be an argument in favor of keeping 'linux3' it makes no sense, since '2' vs '3' is in no way a useful line of demarcation when it comes to linux.

So, if you think there is a *run time* need to know the precise *build time* OS version number, can you point to any specific use cases?
History
Date User Action Args
2011-08-19 14:26:15r.david.murraysetrecipients: + r.david.murray, lemburg, loewis, barry, doko, amaury.forgeotdarc, gagern, foom, pitrou, haypo, jwilk, djc, ezio.melotti, merwok, Arfrever, dmalcolm, sandro.tosi, rosslagerwall, python-dev, petri.lehtinen, Ramchandra Apte
2011-08-19 14:26:15r.david.murraysetmessageid: <1313763975.65.0.0393608400438.issue12326@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2011-08-19 14:26:15r.david.murraylinkissue12326 messages
2011-08-19 14:26:14r.david.murraycreate