[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?
[Linus Torvalds - Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 07:22:04PM -0700]
| On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Stoyan Gaydarov wrote:
| >
| > Second I wanted to talk about the linux 2.7.x kernel, whats in the
| > making or maybe even not started
| Nothing.
| I'm not going back to the old model. The new model is so much better that
| it's not even worth entertaining as a theory to go back.
| That said, I _am_ considering changing just the numbering. Not to go back
| to the old model, but because a constantly increasing minor number leads
| to big numbers. I'm not all that thrilled with "26" as a number: it's hard
| to remember.
| So I would not dismiss (and have been thinking about starting) talk about
| a simple numbering reset (perhaps yearly), but the old model of 3-year
| developement trees is simply not coming back as far as I'm concerned.
| In fact, I think the time-based releases (ie the "2 weeks of merge window
| until -rc1, followed by roughly two months of stabilization") has been so
| successful that I'd prefer to skip the version numbering model too. We
| don't do releases based on "features" any more, so why should we do
| version _numbering_ based on "features"?
| For example, I don't see any individual feature that would merit a jump
| from 2.x to 3.x or even from 2.6.x to 2.8.x. So maybe those version jumps
| should be done by a time-based model too - matching how we actually do
| releases anyway.
| So if the version were to be date-based, instead of releasing 2.6.26,
| maybe we could have 2008.7 instead. Or just increment the major version
| every decade, the middle version every year, and the minor version every
| time we make a release. Whatever.
| But three-year development trees with a concurrent stable tree? Nope. Not
| going to happen.
| Linus

Hi to all! Since I've been Cc'ed :) I think I'm not the right person
to be asked about numbering scheme (and since I'm not that long in
kernel) BUT actually I think there is only one question - it's not
about how to number the kernel but rather what we trying to say by
numbering scheme. Some areas should be distinguished:

- development/stable team
- distros
- regular users

Most developers work with git trees and rather carries about sha1 then
a version number :) So eventually numbering scheme is not that important
for developers by its own.

Distros - well, i think distros use they own scheme anyway so they don't
really care about kernel versioning scheme (Gentoo-2008, Fedora-9, Ubuntu-8.04...)

So we have the quite large group of people which should be considered for
convenient versioning scheme - _regular users_. Lets say I'm a regular user -
the most convenient scheme for me would be YYYY.r.s i think since it tells
me - this kernel is fresh enough to be used on my shining laptop, and maybe
it even supports all hardware I have! And at least it looks good -


but personally i don't really care that much :)

- Cyrill -

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-15 16:27    [W:0.211 / U:109.560 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site