Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S261449AbSJUPaU>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:30:20 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S261450AbSJUPaU>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:30:20 -0400
Received: from rtlab.med.cornell.edu ([140.251.145.175]:9096 "HELO
	openlab.rtlab.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id <S261449AbSJUPaT>;
	Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:30:19 -0400
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:36:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Calin A. Culianu" <calin@ajvar.org>
X-X-Sender: <calin@rtlab.med.cornell.edu>
To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [OT] Please don't call it 3.0!! (was Re: The reason to call it 3.0
 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA)))
In-Reply-To: <15786.28159.854350.479513@laputa.namesys.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33L2.0210211130520.32652-100000@rtlab.med.cornell.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 782
Lines: 17


So what's the verdict?  Are we calling it 3.0 or 2.6?  Who am I to say
this, but I really feel calling it kernel 3.0 is not fully justified.  We
should stick with the 2.x series until major ABI or API changes break the
C library in massive ways, at which point we increment the major version
number.

Although its tempting to appeal to the mainstream by inflating the version
number artificially (what's Redhat up to now? 8.0?? sheesh!!), we have to
respect ourselves as developers.  Why call it 3.0, other than to stroke
our own egos?

-
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/