Farewell To The Linux 2.6 Kernel?

[d2kx]

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.

[Michael]

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.

[deanjo]

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.

[d2kx]

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)
...

[deanjo]

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

[phoronix]

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