Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761815AbYGOOZE (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:25:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757607AbYGOOYv (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:24:51 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.235]:23214 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756921AbYGOOYu (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:24:50 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=f+yh8pxSifuCJx5AxSlFNPIG1h27lyG1Ef1BLFMraeiC9/97nRcvR7CJY9ciNq7s2w H1qkFGq89v7oVrhC5J7W+cg5ORxDdp+aTk5MAbo1KBDyb3dR9YQivKLdknE7YEW76SIf rOfgQFJwH4PSgfnpG7GG0Q+p8oHsteDcg/OXI= Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:24:44 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Stoyan Gaydarov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox , akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7? Message-ID: <20080715142444.GA7121@asus> References: <6d291e080807141910m573b29b2t753ea7c4db09902d@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3227 Lines: 77 [Linus Torvalds - Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 07:22:04PM -0700] | | | On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Stoyan Gaydarov wrote: | > | > Second I wanted to talk about the linux 2.7.x kernel, whats in the | > making or maybe even not started | | Nothing. | | I'm not going back to the old model. The new model is so much better that | it's not even worth entertaining as a theory to go back. | | That said, I _am_ considering changing just the numbering. Not to go back | to the old model, but because a constantly increasing minor number leads | to big numbers. I'm not all that thrilled with "26" as a number: it's hard | to remember. | | So I would not dismiss (and have been thinking about starting) talk about | a simple numbering reset (perhaps yearly), but the old model of 3-year | developement trees is simply not coming back as far as I'm concerned. | | In fact, I think the time-based releases (ie the "2 weeks of merge window | until -rc1, followed by roughly two months of stabilization") has been so | successful that I'd prefer to skip the version numbering model too. We | don't do releases based on "features" any more, so why should we do | version _numbering_ based on "features"? | | For example, I don't see any individual feature that would merit a jump | from 2.x to 3.x or even from 2.6.x to 2.8.x. So maybe those version jumps | should be done by a time-based model too - matching how we actually do | releases anyway. | | So if the version were to be date-based, instead of releasing 2.6.26, | maybe we could have 2008.7 instead. Or just increment the major version | every decade, the middle version every year, and the minor version every | time we make a release. Whatever. | | But three-year development trees with a concurrent stable tree? Nope. Not | going to happen. | | Linus | Hi to all! Since I've been Cc'ed :) I think I'm not the right person to be asked about numbering scheme (and since I'm not that long in kernel) BUT actually I think there is only one question - it's not about how to number the kernel but rather what we trying to say by numbering scheme. Some areas should be distinguished: - development/stable team - distros - regular users Most developers work with git trees and rather carries about sha1 then a version number :) So eventually numbering scheme is not that important for developers by its own. Distros - well, i think distros use they own scheme anyway so they don't really care about kernel versioning scheme (Gentoo-2008, Fedora-9, Ubuntu-8.04...) So we have the quite large group of people which should be considered for convenient versioning scheme - _regular users_. Lets say I'm a regular user - the most convenient scheme for me would be YYYY.r.s i think since it tells me - this kernel is fresh enough to be used on my shining laptop, and maybe it even supports all hardware I have! And at least it looks good - Linux-2008.0.0 but personally i don't really care that much :) - Cyrill - -- 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/