Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758959AbYGQRZY (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:25:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757104AbYGQRZK (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:25:10 -0400 Received: from sovereign.computergmbh.de ([85.214.69.204]:52125 "EHLO sovereign.computergmbh.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756112AbYGQRZJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:25:09 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:25:07 +0200 (CEST) From: Jan Engelhardt To: Linus Torvalds cc: Stoyan Gaydarov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox , gorcunov@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <6d291e080807141910m573b29b2t753ea7c4db09902d@mail.gmail.com> <6d291e080807141931g3080c94cic94f503c1a18523b@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LNX 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1512 Lines: 33 On Tuesday 2008-07-15 09:49, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >Sometime on Tuesday 2008-07-15, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >>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. > >Maybe not individual feature, but as a whole. We probably should have >jumped when the new model was introduced. Ok, that did not happen, but >over time, the kernel's abilities increased and then sometime, there >was a release where you would say (as of today) "yes, that kernel back >there has been a really good one" where a version jump would have been >warranted at the same time. For me, these are 2.6.18, .22, .23 or .25 >(pick one). However, there also needs to be a bit of time between minor >number bumps, so if 2.6.18 were 2.7.0, 2.6.25 would be the earliest to >qualify for a 2.8.0. Continuing on that thought.. Incrementing the minor number once every 6 to 8 releases or so (resetting the micro number to 0 of course) would nicely mark a group of featureful kernels. -- 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/