Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:24:44 +0400 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: 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 -
Linux-2008.0.0
but personally i don't really care that much :)
- Cyrill -
| |