Messages in this thread | | | From | jbradford@dial ... | Subject | [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (WAS Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice) | Date | Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:51:58 +0100 (BST) |
| |
> > 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:
NEO GEO MAX 330 MEGA PRO GEAR SPEC
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.
John.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |