lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: (Short?) merge window reminder
On 05/23/2011 04:33 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar<mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>>
>> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
>> cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
> not "3.0.0" - the stable team would get the third digit rather than
> the fourth one.
>
> But no, it wouldn't be for 42. Despite THHGTTG, I think "40" is a
> fairly nice round number.
>
> There's also the timing issue - since we no longer do version numbers
> based on features, but based on time, just saying "we're about to
> start the third decade" works as well as any other excuse.
>

I don't think year-based versions (like 2011.0 for the first 2011
release, or maybe 2011.5 for May 2011) are pretty, but I'll make an
argument for them anyway: it makes it easier to figure out when hardware
ought to be supported.

So if I buy a 2014-model laptop and the coffee-making button doesn't
work, and my favorite distro is running the 2013 kernel, then I know I
shouldn't expect to it to work. (Graphics drivers are probably a more
realistic example.)

Also, when someone in my lab installs <insert ancient enterprise distro
here> on a box that's running software I wrote that needs to support
modern high-speed peripherals, then I can say "What? You seriously
expect this stuff to work on Linux 2007? Let's install a slightly less
stable distro from at least 2010." This sounds a lot less nerdy than
"What? You seriously expect this stuff to work on Linux 2.6.27? Let's
install a slightly less stable distro that uses at least 2.6.36."


--Andy


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-24 23:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans