Farewell To The Linux 2.6 Kernel?

[[Knuckles]]

Honestly, the kernel version doesn't matter to most users. To the rest of us, we have one we already understand quite well, and are used to, so why change it "just because"?

I for one like the current scheme. It's simple and it works. So I hope they'll stick around to 2.6.30 (hey, 2.0 got up to 2.0.40, so what's the problem?) and beyond.

[JeanPaul145]

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).

[hdas]

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 .

[3vi1]

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.

[deanjo]

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.

[3vi1]

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

[deanjo]

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.

[3vi1]

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

[JeanPaul145]

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)

[deanjo]

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.