[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: RFD: Kernel release numbering
Linus Torvalds wrote:

>In other words, we'd have an increasing level of instability with an odd
>release number, depending on how long-term the instability is.
> - 2.6.<even>: even at all levels, aim for having had minimally intrusive
> patches leading up to it (timeframe: a week or two)
>with the odd numbers going like:
> - 2.6.<odd>: still a stable kernel, but accept bigger changes leading up
> to it (timeframe: a month or two).
> - 2.<odd>.x: aim for big changes that may destabilize the kernel for
> several releases (timeframe: a year or two)
> - <odd>.x.x: Linus went crazy, broke absolutely _everything_, and rewrote
> the kernel to be a microkernel using a special message-passing version
> of Visual Basic. (timeframe: "we expect that he will be released from
> the mental institution in a decade or two").
Fine with me - but I tend to run mm kernels anyway to get the "latest". :-)

Now, if this implies linux 3.0.0 won't ever happen, how about getting
rid of the major number? It serves no purpose if not used at all. (I don't
consider the VB thing realistic . . .)

Or, if you want to keep the major number for consistency with earlier
kernels, consider:
2.<even> minimally intrusive patches
2.<odd> big changes needing a month
<odd>.x big changes that destabilize over several releases
2.x.y takes the role 2.x.y.z has today.

Helge Hafting

Helge Hafting
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:10    [W:0.580 / U:1.360 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site