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

[RealNC]

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.

[cl333r]

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.

[RealNC]

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.

[RSpliet]

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?

[d2kx]

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.

[phoronix]

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

In a message to the Linux Kernel Mailing List today regarding the shortened merge window for the Linux 2.6.40 kernel, Linus Torvalds brings up that there's already been many Linux 2.6 kernel releases and that he could end up tagging this as the Linux 2.8.0 kernel...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTQ3NQ