Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:06:48 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change |
| |
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:54:00PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 01:30:33PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > IMHO, having a small number of small digits is the way to go. Using > > > 1 or 2 digits for the major and 1 for the minor is fine. After 3.9, you > > > go to version 4.0. Anyway, there are so many changes between versions > > > these days that any new versions could justify a major change (eg: > > > check the size of the 2.6.27 patch). > > > > > > With versions from 1.1 to 9.9, you can go as high as 88 versions, > > > which is about 22 years of development at current pace. After that, > > > we can simply turn to 10.0 and not break anything. > > > > > > It's also easier for users. Check how many non-kernel techies around you > > > know all 3 digits of the version they use. It's easier to remember 4.3 > > > than it is to remember 2.6.27. > > > > I agree that would be nicer, and easier for everyone. > > It's true it would be easier for tracking down and remembering the > version number, but on the other hand, the good thing about this > version number system is that we now 2.6.xx is a rather stable and > complete kernel tree and when we move to 2.7, we know it'll be the start > for the 2.8 kernel series.
Um, did you not get the memo 3 years ago saying we are changing our development model and there will not be a 2.7 development series?
Damm, I thought I had printed it out and placed it on everyone's chairs. Those pesky cleaners must have picked it up and recycled it, sorry about that...
> Just like the migration from 2.4 to 2.5.
Please don't bring up the dark ages again, many of us went through things back then that have taken a lot of counseling to be able to get over.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |