Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Farewell To The Linux 2.6 Kernel?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Farewell To The Linux 2.6 Kernel?

    Phoronix: Farewell To The Linux 2.6 Kernel?

    Version 2.6 of the Linux kernel was released in late 2003 and since then the developers have stuck with the 2.6.x.y version numbering. It's been five years with the stable Linux 2.6 kernel, but a proposal has been made on the Linux kernel mailing list to change this scheme...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=Njc5MQ

  • #2
    Personally I think this would be a stupid idea. To track a kernel release history would be a pain in the ass between the RC's and final. Hell even MS abandoned such stupid release monikers after Win 2k.

    ie
    2009.1.1 RC1
    2009.2.23 RC2
    .....
    2009.4.13 final

    Comment


    • #3
      The last number is the patch version I guess. Development of the next kernel for example:

      2009.1 RC1
      2009.1 RC2
      2009.1 RC3
      2009.1.0 Final
      2009.1.1 (some fixes)
      2009.1.2 (some fixes)
      ...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by d2kx View Post
        The last number is the patch version I guess. Development of the next kernel for example:

        2009.1 RC1
        2009.1 RC2
        2009.1 RC3
        2009.1.0 Final
        2009.1.1 (some fixes)
        2009.1.2 (some fixes)
        ...
        That would be great if they could go from RC to final in a period of a month.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
          That would be great if they could go from RC to final in a period of a month.
          The aa in YYYY.aa.bb wouldn't be the month but just the release number so far that year, so the month doesn't matter at all.
          Michael Larabel
          http://www.michaellarabel.com/

          Comment


          • #6
            They could also do a

            2008.10 RC1
            2008.10 RC2
            2008.11 RC3
            2008.11 RC4
            2008.12.0 Final

            So that the current month is the version. I personally would like it that way, but the other ways (minus Linux 3) are good, too. Linux 2.6.x doesn't mean anything anymore.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Michael View Post
              The aa in YYYY.aa.bb wouldn't be the month but just the release number so far that year, so the month doesn't matter at all.
              OK but I really don't see the value of having a year used as a version number especially in a project that does not comply to any real set release dates or schedule.
              Last edited by deanjo; 10-17-2008, 04:57 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                OK but I really don't see the value of having a year used as a version number especially in a project that does not comply to any real set release dates or schedule.
                I'm in 100% agreement with you.
                In addition to that, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the current version naming scheme. I like the fact that it has used the same scheme for the last 4-5 years, it makes it dependable. Changing it would only lead to confusion, much like how Nvidia has messed up their versioning schemes with some cards the GeForce 9xxx series basically being re-branded 8xxx series cards, and others having a completely redesigned GPU.

                I vote for keeping the 2.6.x versioning until the end of time!
                (or until changes of significant magnitude are made to justify a 2.8.x or even 3.0 release)

                Comment


                • #9
                  If my opinion meant anything (which it doesn't) I would vote to go with the time base numbering - but drop the stupid Millennium and century. It would have the added benefit of putting the major numbers in sync with Ubuntu, and put the current number 1 ahead of the next Windows release.

                  Kubuntu 8.10, with kernel 8.27.7!

                  And, only when a minor number changes should the major number change. Also, patch levels should never change the major number. That is to say - at the stroke of midnight 8.28-12 does not become 9.28.12. The next patch would still be 8.28.13... etc. 9.29.1 would be the first "new" kernel. Let the minor revision climb until there's an major re-architecture of some piece of the kernel.

                  -J
                  Last edited by 3vi1; 10-17-2008, 10:34 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 3vi1 View Post
                    It would have the added benefit of putting the major numbers in sync with Ubuntu,
                    Linux does not revolve around ubuntu. Ubuntu's numbering scheme makes sense for them as they release on set schedules like clockwork. This does not apply to the kernel at all (or any other real opensource project). It's a lot easier to package a bunch of software together then it is to develop where unforseen events can delay a working release ranging from days to months to years.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                      Linux does not revolve around ubuntu.
                      LoL... I never said it did. That was kind of a joke. Calm down and browse to the website of your favorite distro.

                      I still like the idea of numbering by time, because it makes you aware of the progress. If 2.6 is going to be on the front of everything from now on... why even have it?

                      I have another idea: how about we drop the major and minor revision levels, and use latitude and longitude? I mean, if we're going to use the fourth dimension for one of the numbers... why not have the other two relate to where Linus was sitting when he did the commit?

                      -J

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 3vi1 View Post
                        I still like the idea of numbering by time, because it makes you aware of the progress. If 2.6 is going to be on the front of everything from now on... why even have it?
                        I would see nothing wrong with going to a new major number. Enough has changed IMHO from 2.6.0 that it warrants it. I just don't think the numbering system should be tied to a value of no real relevance to it's development. Dates are what time stamps are for.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                          I would see nothing wrong with going to a new major number. Enough has changed IMHO from 2.6.0 that it warrants it. I just don't think the numbering system should be tied to a value of no real relevance to it's development. Dates are what time stamps are for.
                          I can respect that opinion. I wouldn't be adverse to losing the first two digits entirely... it just seems that the version numbers might continue rising at a pace that makes non-techies "feel" it's unstable.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            there are better things to bother about than this . and i am sure this is almost like the last thing that would come to anyone's mind .

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 3vi1 View Post
                              If my opinion meant anything (which it doesn't) I would vote to go with the time base numbering - but drop the stupid Millennium and century. It would have the added benefit of putting the major numbers in sync with Ubuntu, and put the current number 1 ahead of the next Windows release.

                              Kubuntu 8.10, with kernel 8.27.7!

                              And, only when a minor number changes should the major number change. Also, patch levels should never change the major number. That is to say - at the stroke of midnight 8.28-12 does not become 9.28.12. The next patch would still be 8.28.13... etc. 9.29.1 would be the first "new" kernel. Let the minor revision climb until there's an major re-architecture of some piece of the kernel.

                              -J
                              This would only lead to more confusion, the current scheme is easier to understand and works fine. Also, like deanjo said, time-based numbering makes no sense for most OSS projects since they will release when they feel the release is ready, not because of some deadline approaching (some exceptions being Ubuntu, Fedora, Gnome, KDE, etc etc).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X