Re: [PATCH] Documentation: process: Do not hardcode kernel major version number

[Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>]

Hi,

On 9/13/25 8:18 PM, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On 9/14/25 04:40, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 9/12/25 6:51 PM, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:  
>>> -The kernel developers use a loosely time-based release process, with a new
>>> -major kernel release happening every two or three months.  The recent
>>> -release history looks like this:
>>> +Linux kernel uses a loosely time-based, rolling release development model.
>>
>>     The Linux kernel
>>
>>> +A new major kernel release (a.x) [1]_ happens every two or three monts, which
>>
>> I'm much more used to x.y                                           months,
>>
> 
> The reason I use a.x is because a is indeed supermajor (only incremented on occasional cases i.e. in Linux kernel when x gets large enough), and
> x is already used as second placeholder component.

Do we use the word "supermajor" anywhere?
$ grep ...
Nope.

How about we call it MAJOR (like the top-level Makefile does; well, it calls it
both VERSION and MAJOR[1]), so use
	m.x

I would say "or v.x" but that could be confusing when someone references a
v6.17-rc5 kernel.


[1]: from Makefile:VERSION = 6
PATCHLEVEL = 17
SUBLEVEL = 0
and
	echo \#define LINUX_VERSION_MAJOR $(VERSION);                    \
	echo \#define LINUX_VERSION_PATCHLEVEL $(PATCHLEVEL);            \
	echo \#define LINUX_VERSION_SUBLEVEL $(SUBLEVEL)

G'day.
-- 
~Randy