Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:35:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:35:13 -0400 Received: from pincoya.inf.utfsm.cl ([200.1.19.3]:44554 "EHLO pincoya.inf.utfsm.cl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:35:12 -0400 Message-Id: <200209281540.g8SFeMRX010119@pincoya.inf.utfsm.cl> To: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Kernel version [Was: Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice driver] In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:46:35 +0200." X-mailer: MH [Version 6.8.4] X-charset: ISO_8859-1 Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:40:22 -0400 From: Horst von Brand Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1971 Lines: 39 Ingo Molnar said: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > Tangent question, is it definitely to be named 2.6? > > > > I see no real reason to call it 3.0. > > > > The order-of-magnitude threading improvements might just come closest to > > being a "new thing", but yeah, I still consider it 2.6.x. We don't have > > new architectures or other really fundamental stuff. In many ways the > > jump from 2.2 -> 2.4 was bigger than the 2.4 -> 2.6 thing will be, I > > suspect. > > i consider the VM and IO improvements one of the most important things > that happened in the past 5 years - and it's definitely something that > users will notice. Finally we have a top-notch VM and IO subsystem (in > addition to the already world-class networking subsystem) giving > significant improvements both on the desktop and the server - the jump > from 2.4 to 2.5 is much larger than from eg. 2.0 to 2.4. But is is as large as the jump from 1.2.x to 2.0.x? > I think due to these improvements if we dont call the next kernel 3.0 then > probably no Linux kernel in the future will deserve a major number. In 2-4 > years we'll only jump to 3.0 because there's no better number available > after 2.8. That i consider to be ... boring :) [while kernel releases are > supposed to be a bit boring, i dont think they should be _that_ boring.] What is wrong with 2.10, or 2.256 for that matter? -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/