[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Subject[OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (WAS Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice)
    > > Tangent question, is it definitely to be named 2.6?
    > I see no real reason to call it 3.0.
    > The order-of-magnitude threading improvements might just come closest to
    > being a "new thing", but yeah, I still consider it 2.6.x. We don't have
    > new architectures or other really fundamental stuff. In many ways the jump
    > from 2.2 -> 2.4 was bigger than the 2.4 -> 2.6 thing will be, I suspect.

    I think we should stick to incrementing the major number when binary compatibility is broken.

    > But hey, it's just a number. I don't feel that strongly either way. I
    > think version number inflation (can anybody say "distribution makers"?) is
    > a bit silly, and the way the kernel numbering works there is no reason to
    > bump the major number for regular releases.

    Psycologically and sub-conciously, this kind of thing _does_ make people stand up and take notice.

    For example, SNK made the NeoGeo arcade games print things like:

    MAX 330 MEGA

    on start up and in attract mode.

    As far as I know, the 330 MEGA means absolutely nothing, and pro gear spec is just an arbitrary name for the addressing system used.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.020 / U:5.124 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site