Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Talks Of Linux 2.8 Or Linux 3.0; Ending Linux 2.6

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

  • V!NCENT
    replied
    He should scrap the 2.6.40 to 6.40. The first number is useless now that it everybody knows that the first stable release of Linux, ever, has been delivered a very, very, very long time ago. Uneven like 2.6.39 indicates unstable and 2.6.40.indicates stable. The first number is absolutely useless nowadays.

    Now the second number 2.6.40 indicates an acrhitecture overhaul. So either keep 6 or dare to make a 2.7.0 kernel change towards a stable 2.8.0. I don't think that it would be a problem if the code stays the same but with slow modularization over time. 2.7.1 indicating unstable and 2.7.2 indicating the first stable release. Having 2.8.0, or rather 8.0, as a modular kernel.

    The kernel is getting fat. I think taking modular design beyond kernel modules is great. I don't think that breaking stuff is good. I'd say pull a Gnome 3.x at the incremental change planning of Gnome 2.x.

    Anything else in terms of versioning numbers is total horror and only useful as Wine now has a 'useful' 1.x version scheme while I wished they still 0.9.x'd the sucker.

    Leave a comment:


  • RealNC
    replied
    Originally posted by cl333r View Post
    I personally like a "3.0" better (2 digits), rather than "2.8.0" (three digits).
    Well, 3.0 would technically be 3.0.0. It's just that usually when there's two 0's in a row, the last isn't written. So it would be 2.8. Only the first update to it would be written as 2.8.1.

    It's like we have now. 2.6.39 got released, not 2.6.39.0. But the first update to it will be 2.6.39.1.

    Leave a comment:


  • cl333r
    replied
    I personally like a "3.0" better (2 digits), rather than "2.8.0" (three digits).

    Besides, the "two" (in 2.x.x) doesn't mean anything any longer since no one in his right mind is using any Linux version prior to 2.x.x imo.

    Leave a comment:


  • RealNC
    replied
    The current version number scheme is wrong anyway. With the model now used by the kernel, it makes more sense to release the next version as 2.7.0 and drop the fourth number completely. What use does it have anyway? After 2.7.0 is released, merge window for 2.8.0 opens, and updates to the current stable kernel should be tagged as 2.7.1, 2.7.2, etc.

    Edit:
    Also, they shouldn't be afraid to increase the major number. For example, removing the BKL was big enough of a change to go to 3.0.0.
    Last edited by RealNC; 05-23-2011, 05:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • RSpliet
    replied
    Are major versions not ment for big changes.

    Hmm, I always thought going up a major (or even a minor) meant a big time change with loads of incompatibilities. Has the Godfather already decided on what he'd want to break?

    Leave a comment:


  • d2kx
    replied
    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
    That is a good change.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X