Linux 5.20 Likely To Be Called Linux 6.0

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Linux 5.20 Likely To Be Called Linux 6.0

In case you missed it in yesterday's Linux 5.19 announcement and to avoid reader questions/confusion in the days ahead, just making it loud and clear here: what was referred to as the Linux 5.20 kernel in development will most likely be called Linux 6.0...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-5.20-Is-Linux-6.0

[wertigon]

While I have full respect for Linux naming their versions however they want, the current versioning scheme feels a bit outdated.

I personally think it makes more sense with the YY.MM.pointrelease scheme for most software released today, since most release schemes are arbitrary anyway, atleast this way it is possible to keep track of how old they are.

That said, Linux does what Linux wants, just some food for thought.

[Jbk0]

While I have full respect for Linux naming their versions however they want, the current versioning scheme feels a bit outdated.

I personally think it makes more sense with the YY.MM.pointrelease scheme for most software released today, since most release schemes are arbitrary anyway, atleast this way it is possible to keep track of how old they are.

That said, Linux does what Linux wants, just some food for thought.

2-digit years? Come on.

I still agree though, the current versioning scheme is/was a bit confusing to me. I've seen many projects use semantic versioning, and thought e.g. a bump from 4.xx.xxx to 5.xx.xxx would break some major behavior of the kernel. It didn't.

[uxmkt]

Ha, there's the arithmophobia again.

I personally think it makes more sense [to] [...]

The arguments have all been proposed before; there's nothing new on the table. The die has been cast, let it go. Moreover, was never chosen to please the public.

[cl333r]

And 19.20 -> 1.0?

[PluMGMK]

Nope, 4.20 never existed. It became 5.0.

Huh? http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/k...2.2/06158.html

[chilek]

https://cdn.kernel.org/pub/linux/ker...ngeLog-4.20.17

[Danny3]

It would be nice if these major version bumps would introduce some long postponed breaking changes instead of the allways backwards-compatible with the past things.

[Etherman]

Wow 6.0. Feels like the future is now!

[coder]

I personally think it makes more sense with the YY.MM.pointrelease scheme for most software released today, since most release schemes are arbitrary anyway, at least this way it is possible to keep track of how old they are.

You're looking at this from the very narrow perspective of someone who tends to stay near the leading edge. Some Kernel releases have a very long lifespan, especially in LTS distros and more specialized contexts. And they're only "outdated" in the sense of big, new features. There's a lot of back-porting of bug fixes and even hardware enablement.

That said, perhaps we can agree that the Major.Minor portion of their numbering scheme is clearly vestigial and mostly serves no purpose. I could see replacing it with a single, sequential number -- just, not based on the year.

just some food for thought.

Well, it gave my brain a bit of indigestion. But perhaps we eventually got to a point of agreement?