Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:25:07 +0200 (CEST) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7? |
| |
On Tuesday 2008-07-15 09:49, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >Sometime on Tuesday 2008-07-15, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >>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. > >Maybe not individual feature, but as a whole. We probably should have >jumped when the new model was introduced. Ok, that did not happen, but >over time, the kernel's abilities increased and then sometime, there >was a release where you would say (as of today) "yes, that kernel back >there has been a really good one" where a version jump would have been >warranted at the same time. For me, these are 2.6.18, .22, .23 or .25 >(pick one). However, there also needs to be a bit of time between minor >number bumps, so if 2.6.18 were 2.7.0, 2.6.25 would be the earliest to >qualify for a 2.8.0.
Continuing on that thought..
Incrementing the minor number once every 6 to 8 releases or so (resetting the micro number to 0 of course) would nicely mark a group of featureful kernels.
| |