Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932152Ab1EXNCg (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2011 09:02:36 -0400 Received: from seven.medozas.de ([188.40.89.202]:51368 "EHLO seven.medozas.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756112Ab1EXNCe (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2011 09:02:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:02:33 +0200 (CEST) From: Jan Engelhardt To: Jacek Luczak cc: Linus Torvalds , "H. Peter Anvin" , "Ted Ts'o" , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, DRI , linux-fsdevel , "linux-mm Message-ID: References: <20110523192056.GC23629@elte.hu> <20110523231721.GM10009@thunk.org> <4DDAEC68.30803@zytor.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LNX 1266 2009-07-14) 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: 1775 Lines: 42 On Tuesday 2011-05-24 14:30, Jacek Luczak wrote: >2011/5/24 Jan Engelhardt : >> On Tuesday 2011-05-24 01:33, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >>>Another advantage of switching numbering models (ie 3.0 instead of >>>2.8.x) would be that it would also make the "odd numbers are also >>>numbers" transition much more natural. >>> >>>Because of our historical even/odd model, I wouldn't do a 2.7.x - >>>there's just too much history of 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 being development >>>trees. >> >> .oO(Though once 2.{7 or more, odd} trickle into the distros, it would >> become pretty much apparent that they are not devel.) >> >>>And then in another few years (probably before getting close to 3.40, >>>so I'm not going to make a big deal of 3 = "third decade"), I'd just >>>do 4.0 etc. >> >> While 2.6 has certainly worn out, already thinking of a 4.0 is highly >> reminiscient of the version number arms race Firefox and ChromeBrowser >> are doing currently. >> >>>Because all our releases are supposed to be stable releases these >>>days, and if we get rid of one level of numbering, I feel perfectly >>>fine with getting rid of the even/odd history too. >> >> If I remember past-time discussions right, ELF was the contributing >> factor to bump the major number to 2.0 back then; ever since 2.0, no >> similarly breakthrough-ing event has occurred. > >What then about BKL removal? Nice place to celebrate with version jump >and heaving some beers. The BKL going away was not a change that would require new userspace programs. -- 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/