Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 31 Dec 1998 21:52:05 +0000 ( ) | From | Aaron Lehmann <> | Subject | Re: I vote for incrimenting the version number to 3.0.0, Re: Linux-2.2.0 (pre1) NOT! |
| |
Windows 1.0 -> 2.0 -> 3.0 -> 3.1 -> 3.11 -> NT 3.5.1 -> 95 -> NT 4.0 -> 98 -> 2000
A little out of order? And why did they skip versions 6 - 94? ;-)
Versions 99-1999? I believe those were the betas of NT 5 ;-)
It gets even more confiusing when you add in WinCE (WINCE), then you have repetitive versioning :)
On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Ed Yung wrote:
> At this time I don't believe a change in numbers should make a difference > now because everyone is already looking foward to 2.2 besides version > number shouldn't really matter when it comes to OSes. . . Figure this > even Windows 3.0->3.1->3.11 - and each of those had some significant amount > of changes between the versions so even though 2.2 has improvements and > changes over 2.0 it doesn't warrant a version change to 3.0. . . Besides > the main thought to .0 releases are that .0 releases are buggy versions not > stable. So 2.2 is much more marketable than you think. > Ed > > At 07:56 PM 12/30/1998 -0500, Anthony Barbachan wrote: > >Have it more sellable is just a nice side effect, my main argument is that > >the amount of changes and additions to the kernel justifies its version > >being incrimented to 3.0.0. A .2 upgrade usually denotes a minor upgrade. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Gavin M. Roy <gavinroy@nextpath.com> > >To: ralf@uni-koblenz.de <ralf@uni-koblenz.de>; Anthony Barbachan > ><barbacha@Hinako.AMBusiness.com>; Kernel Mailing List > ><linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu> > >Date: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 4:18 AM > >Subject: Re: I vote for incrimenting the version number to 3.0.0, Re: > >Linux-2.2.0 (pre1) > > > > > >>Not to mention usually, and I believe in the case of Linux, major > >versioning > >>is layed out ahead of time, with certain goals in mind. i.e. the 2.2 > >>kernels have a certain goal-set, the 3.0 kernels have a certain goal set. > >>Making the versioning "sound" more impressive isn't the goal here. The > >goal > >>is to create an organized, stable OS kernel. Than means making a roadmap > >>and sticking to it. > >> > >>My 2 cents, anyway (c: > >> > >>Gavin > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: <ralf@uni-koblenz.de> > >>To: Anthony Barbachan <barbacha@Hinako.AMBusiness.com>; Kernel Mailing List > >><linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu> > >>Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 10:34 AM > >>Subject: Re: I vote for incrimenting the version number to 3.0.0, Re: > >>Linux-2.2.0 (pre1) > >> > >> > >>>On Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 10:07:50PM -0500, Anthony Barbachan wrote: > >>> > >>>> With all the changes in the upcomming kernel, as well as the time > >>invested > >>>> in its development, it seams to me that perhaps we should release it as > >>>> 3.0.0. 2.2 makes it sound like an incrimental release, not much > >>different > >>>> than 2.0.x. Besides which 3.0.0 sounds much more sellable to future > >>>> potential customers/users who are used to MS's (as well as others') bad > >>>> habit of taking three versions to get thing right. > >>> > >>>Number cosmetics ... > >>> > >>> Ralf > >>> > >>>- > >>>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > >>>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > >>>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >- > >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > >Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |