Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linus Torvalds Considering End To Linux 2.6 Series

Unknown Lamer posted more than 3 years ago | from the linux-millenium-edition dept.

Linux 293

An anonymous reader writes "With the Linux 2.6 kernel set to begin its 40th development cycle and the Linux kernel nearing its 20th anniversary, Linus Torvalds has expressed interest today in moving away from the Linux 2.6.x kernel version. Instead he's looking to change things up by releasing the next kernel as Linux version 2.8 or 3.0."

cancel ×

293 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I guess now's as good a time as any (1)

radumash (1964984) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222298)

There are a lot of new features in it, might as well bump the version

Re:I guess now's as good a time as any (2, Funny)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222442)

Will it run Crysis any faster though?

Joke aside, what will be new?

Re:I guess now's as good a time as any (2)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222554)

They number and if you can run Crysis on a linux system detail exactly what system hardware, video, ram, etc by UPC number. The exact flavor of Linux (strawberry, pony, salmon) with detailed configuration and what fucking technogod you prayed to. Saint Vidicon just ain't cuttin' it at my end. ;)

Re:I guess now's as good a time as any (2)

Sinthet (2081954) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222828)

I heard that if you pray to Saint Ignucious, you can get it to run in emacs!

Offtopic, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222982)

Thanks for the reference to St. Vidicon. Gotta dig up that series and re-read them.

On schedule (1)

Vector Meson (84092) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222306)

Great! The Linux kernel is on schedule to change at 2.6.42.

How about Linux 7.0 (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222310)

That kind of version jump will show Microsoft and Apple that Linux now has professional marketing behind it.

Re:How about Linux 7.0 (4, Funny)

PhrstBrn (751463) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222754)

It needs to be Linux Kernel 6.1, but the OS should be Linux 7. For marketing, of course.

Re:How about Linux 7.0 (5, Funny)

Shoe Puppet (1557239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222822)

Just crank it up to 11.0, putting it ahead of Mac OS.

3.0 ? (1)

elPetak (2016752) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222316)

If they go with 3.0 I hope they include major changes in it. Otherwise what's the point ?

Re:3.0 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222358)

They've been doing lots and lots of incremental changes in the years that 2.6 has been around. Between 2.6.0 and now is a major change, all things said. Besides, in my opinion, it'd just start looking stupid when, in ten years, we're dealing with 2.6.4833 or something.

Re:3.0 ? (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222458)

I'm all in for Linux 3000!

Re:3.0 ? (5, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222550)

Repeat to yourself: It's just a kernel, I really should relax.

Re:3.0 ? (1)

youn (1516637) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222862)

Be careful, when HAL reached version 9000, it became sentient... we want to go slowly with the version numbering... that said, I welcome our omniscient linux overlords as long as they don't kick my butt, act nice and kiss it instead :)

Re:3.0 ? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222362)

Marketing only.

Re:3.0 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222622)

Marketing for whom exactly? People who need the kernel will use it even if it is version 2.6.9001, and people who don't need it won't care even if he releases versions 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the same year.

Software Version marketing works only for sheep and the so called "tech savvy".

If Linus makes it Linux 3.0, it will mostly be for his own musing, or with something else mind.

Not Marketing only - communication. (1)

ron_ivi (607351) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222806)

Not Marketing only - communication.

If they want to communicate "this release has more big changes and is worth more people checking out" - increasing the first number is an effective way of doing so.

If they want to communicate "there's some bleeding edge stuff in here, and we think it works but if you're really conservative wait a bit" - making it end in ".0" is one way of doing so.

Re:3.0 ? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222404)

On the other hand, change to the kernel is always major. Hence the intense scrutiny before yours is incorporated.

Re:3.0 ? (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222810)

If they go with 3.0 I hope they include major changes in it. Otherwise what's the point ?

Well, think of how far the kernel's come since 2.6.0 (let alone the original 2.0, fifteen years ago) and a big jump may make some sense.

There's been other changes, as well. For instance they abandoned the even/odd scheme for "stable" vs. "development" kernels when they started v2.6. So this next big increment to the version number will be the first "stable" version without a dedicated "development" version at a neighboring number. A change in the version numbering scheme is also a good reason to bump up to a new major number.

Re:3.0 ? (1)

murphtall (1979734) | more than 3 years ago | (#36223024)

whoosh!

First number (5, Funny)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222318)

I remember hearing somewhere that Linus said if he ever changed the first number, it meant he had snapped and rewritten it in Python.

Re:First number (5, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222416)

He should do the recursive thing like K&R who wrote the C compiler in C, and just write the Linux kernel in Linux.

Re:First number (2)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222592)

I'm fairly certain he does use Linux to write Linux.

Re:First number (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222646)

Linux writing Linux?
Now I have seen everything!

Re:First number (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222704)

Yo dawg..

You dawg. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222852)

I've always wanted to write my own IDE just so I could get to the point where my IDE would be good enough to write inside itself.

Re:First number (2, Interesting)

ice3 (1305003) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222468)

2.6.: still a stable kernel, but accept bigger changes leading up to it (timeframe: a month or two).

2..x: aim for big changes that may destabilize the kernel for several releases (timeframe: a year or two) .x.x: Linus went crazy, broke absolutely everything, and rewrote the kernel to be a microkernel using a special message-passing version of Visual Basic. (timeframe: "we expect that he will be released from the mental institution in a decade or two").

Re:First number (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222668)

I thought that was the idea, but there hasn't really been a true "stable" 2.6 ever, at least none that I've ever seen. In my case, it usually has to do with buggy drivers.

Re:First number (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222734)

I have 2.6 machines that have been up for years, no they don't have access to the internet.

Re:First number (4, Interesting)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222476)

GNU Emacs went from 1.12 directly to 13 since the major number wasn't expected to change. Linux can probably do one better and go from 2.6.41 to 42, considering it is the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything.

Re:First number (5, Insightful)

Hooya (518216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222930)

42 decimal = 101010 binary
101010 binary = X X X roman
XXX = pr0n!

That's the answer to life, the universe and everything! That cheeky Doug A.

Re:First number (1)

ArcCoyote (634356) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222596)

... in Python 3.0, which also bears no resemblance to 2.x.

Case insensitive file names please! (1, Funny)

Megane (129182) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222328)

Great. Now I can haz case insensitive filenames please? [spinics.net]

The previous answer boiled down to "the appropriate time to make the change is a development kernel such as 2.7."

Re:Case insensitive file names please! (1)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222376)

That's all ready there.

Re:Case insensitive file names please! (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222540)

he's referring to the names of the source code files, not linux supporting case-insensitive file systems.

Re:Case insensitive file names please! (2)

Megane (129182) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222548)

That's all ready there.

[citation needed]

I am specifically referring to names in the kernel source tree using conflicting cases such as:

include/linux/netfilter/xt_connmark.h
include/linux/netfilter/xt_CONNMARK.h

This requires that the kernel source be stored on a case insensitive file system, and will not work with Cygwin, nor with the default filesystem for OS X.

Examples:
Local uncommitted changes, not checked in to index with gitk [nabble.com]
Kernel 2.6.20 File Names Case Sensitivity [mail-archive.com]
The Linux kernel needs a case sensitive filesystem [sirena.org.uk]
Another LFS newb is stuck: Linux API headers won't install [linuxquestions.org]

etc.

Re:Case insensitive file names please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222760)

OS X uses a case-insensitive file system by default. You can install it onto a case-sensitive version of HFS+, although that's been mostly unsupported for quite a while. I don't think 10.6 even fixed OS X's own case-sensitivity issues (similar to the Linux kernel issue you bring up).

Re:Case insensitive file names please! (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222842)

Great. Now I can haz case insensitive filenames please?

That's all ready there.

[citation needed]

Case sensitivity is in the filesystem.

# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/vfat.filesystem bs=1k count=1k
# mkfs.vfat /tmp/vfat.filesystem
# mount -o loop /tmp/vfat.filesystem /mnt/vfat
# echo 'Hello, World!' > /mnt/vfat/testfile
# cat /mnt/vfat/TESTFILE
Hello, World!
# profit!
profit!: command not found

I am specifically referring to names in the kernel source tree using conflicting cases such as:

Ahh, well you should have said that in the first place!

Re:Case insensitive file names please! (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222866)

That's all ready there.

[citation needed]

I am specifically referring to names in the kernel source tree using conflicting cases such as:

include/linux/netfilter/xt_connmark.h

include/linux/netfilter/xt_CONNMARK.h

This requires that the kernel source be stored on a case insensitive file system, and will not work with Cygwin, nor with the default filesystem for OS X.

You know, my knee-jerk reaction to this is just "why?" Like, do people really need/want to build the kernel on such systems?

But I guess the answer is yes, and there are just cases of kernel builds that I don't normally consider. I guess building for an embedded target, or bootstrapping might be the common ones.

There's a cultural thing, I think - as a unix user I don't think filesystems should be case-insensitive. But at the same time, I guess I don't think it's especially good practice to have filenames that differ only in case...

Re:Case insensitive file names please! (2)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222518)

Noooo! fix your damn filesystem!
It's bloody annoying when a developer on windows commits a file in the wrong case, which of course works on NTFS. Then follows the merry-go-round of deleting the file from revision control and re-adding under the correct case e.g. certain MS software saving extensions in all uppercase.

Re:Case insensitive file names please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222572)

or maybe windows should fix it's support for it's own file system. (Hint, NTFS is case sensitive, windows just ignores this.)

Re:Case insensitive file names please! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222598)

As much as I dislike Windows... what purpose does a case-sensitive file system serve? It just confuses people.

Re:Case insensitive file names please! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222834)

As much as I dislike Windows... what purpose does a case-sensitive file system serve? It just confuses people.

It's a discriminator that helps identify the stupid.

Re:Case insensitive file names please! (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222570)

that's suppose to be funny right? cause otherwise he should run the version number backwards if he's going to do something dumb like that. Maybe he can bind COM into the kernel while he's at it.

learn to use 10 fingers typing and maybe it won't be so hard to Do Caps Every Now And Then.

LoB

Re:Case insensitive file names please! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222680)

No, that is wrong. Get a better filesystem.

Re:Case insensitive file names please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222860)

Why does a "better" file system mean case sensitivity? How often does the average user of any file system really need or care about such things? And no, some legacy crap from the 1970s or some niche nerd crap does not necessitate.

version 50.0! beat em all! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222330)

Why not version 50.0? Beat all the browsers and antimalware scanner programs and rise above with a foolish number? or do something stupid and rename it mm/dd/yyyy

It's time to beat Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222336)

Windows 2008 R2D2 is so old fashioned. Release Linux 3000 and I am there.

Mystery Science Linux 3000 (1)

russlar (1122455) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222764)

development code name: forrester

Newsworthy? (1)

immakiku (777365) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222344)

Sure this is a site for nerdy news, but this literally has no impact on anything. It's just a number.

Re:Newsworthy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222702)

Slow news day, only one Sony site got hacked..yawn

Re:Newsworthy? (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222728)

There is news in this given that he has previously made statements regarding his sanity should this day ever come...

Re:Newsworthy? (2)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222762)

but this literally has no impact on anything. It's just a number.

I have seen scripts that look for "2.6" in the result of "uname -r". Those scripts are going to be broken.

Re:Newsworthy? (4, Insightful)

PReDiToR (687141) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222932)

scripts that look for "2.6" in the result of "uname -r"

Those scripts are already broken.

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222348)

I swore I read him saying that versioning no longer matters. So if that is the case, lets give it a long version name that corresponds to something mathematically nerdy like the first few digits of Pi, or Fibonacci Sequence.

Re:lol (1)

IrquiM (471313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222432)

Like the last release candidates of Slackware 13.37?

Some pretty big changes (1)

bobaferret (513897) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222354)

I generally change the minor number when something important has happened, but this are still compatible. And after all of the effort that they've gone through to finally remove the Big Kernel Lock, I think they deserve a new minor version number. It really is a very different architecture inside the kernel now as compared to the start of the 2.5 series.

Re:Some pretty big changes (1)

bobaferret (513897) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222378)

doh! it's obviously after 5 pm here. That should read 'start of the 2.6 series.' oh well.... need beer....

Why not? (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222360)

It's just a number. Is there a real roadmap as to what 2.8 or 3.0 is slated to feature?

I hear Linus is also a considering using names... (1)

hilldog (656513) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222364)

Muttering Mongoose for the next version.

Re:I hear Linus is also a considering using names. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222430)

Its been the old name for a while now:
VERSION = 2
PATCHLEVEL = 6
SUBLEVEL = 39
EXTRAVERSION = -git7
NAME = Flesh-Eating Bats with Fangs ...too bad the nvidia drivers haven't worked with any git version since 2.6.39 (the old can't find kernel sources problem)... and you can point it to the sources in 3 or four different ways (even at the same time), and it just bellyaches.

Why not 20YY.x (5, Interesting)

jisom (113338) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222366)

Why not make it 20YY.x where x is major release that year. and YY would be current 2 digit year. they been pushing releases every 3 months about.

Re:Why not 20YY.x (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222434)

Why not make it 20YY.x where x is major release that year. and YY would be current 2 digit year. they been pushing releases every 3 months about.

Because they'd run into trouble in about 980 years, duh!

They could, of course, go for YYY.x. That would be cool.

Re:Why not 20YY.x (1)

jisom (113338) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222606)

Yeah but we won't be here.

Re:Why not 20YY.x (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222724)

Yeah but we won't be here.

Don't be so sure. Lifespan has been known to increase. By the time we get to the expected end by todays standards, it should have moved forward and so on and so on.

(and YYY.x should have been YYYY.x, of course)

Re:Why not 20YY.x (1)

ArcCoyote (634356) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222628)

Because for that you need apparently need alphabetical $ADJECTIVE.$ANIMAL names, and that kind of went flat with Zoot-suited Zebra in the 26th release.

Re:Why not 20YY.x (1)

oatworm (969674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222816)

Well, only in a base-26 alphabet. If we expand our horizons to include non-European alphabets, we'll be fine for a while yet.

too soon! (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222372)

seems like 2.6.99 would be the last 2.6.xx kernel line before the version jump to 2.8.xx... but its his kernel and he can number em as he wants to..

Re:too soon! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222466)

Nah, they'd probably do the same thing as MAME and go 2.6.100, 2.6.101, 2.6.102, etc.

He should skip to Linux 9.0 (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222382)

Just to keep up with the Chromes and Winderzes and whomever.

Plus, he should be naming releases alphabetically after a cutesy trope, like Ubuntu (Maverick Meerkat, Natty Narwhal) and Android (Gingerbread, Honeycomb, Ice Cream Sandwich) do.

Starting with the letter I, for "I invented the fucking thing."

No, i have a better idea. (1)

fragfoo (2018548) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222386)

They should call it GNU Linux 1.0 kernel and make a middle aged guru happy.

Re:No, i have a better idea. (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222600)

I'd say "Fuck the guru!" except, gurus aren't my style. Of course, I have to wonder whose style a toe jam eating guru WOULD be. Ehh, my sisters like wierd people. I guess SOMEONE would think the old toe jam eater was cool . . .

Re:No, i have a better idea. (2)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222636)

RMS only insists on calling the packaged OS "GNU/Linux" since they use GNU software and the Linux kernel.

Gnome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222402)

Well, as long as it's nothing like Gnome 3.0 we should be ok.

I knew it... (2)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222422)

I knew that random guy on slashdot shouldn't have recommended a change to chrome versioning numbers! Guys, linus listens!

He should call it (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222496)

Linux Vista

Re:He should call it (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222576)

Unless a major exploit is found, then they should call it: Linux E( )o( )3

Re:He should call it (1)

webnut77 (1326189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222620)

Linux Vista

What an oxymoron.

Uhhg... Why so ignorant, commenters? (4, Informative)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222528)

Seriously -- Version numbering does mean something, and when someone says 2.8 or 3.0 to someone who knows the version numbering scheme it actually means something.

As usual, FTWA: [wikipedia.org]

Since 2004, after version 2.6.0 was released, the kernel developers held several discussions ... ultimately Linus Torvalds and others decided that a much shorter release cycle would be beneficial. Since then, the version has been composed of three or four numbers. The first two numbers became largely irrelevant, and the third number is the actual version of the kernel. The fourth number accounts for bug and security fixes (only) to the kernel version.

The first use of the fourth number occurred when a grave error, which required immediate fixing, was encountered in 2.6.8's NFS code. However, there were not enough other changes to legitimize the release of a new minor revision (which would have been 2.6.9). So, 2.6.8.1 was released, with the only change being the fix of that error. With 2.6.11, this was adopted as the new official versioning policy. Later it became customary to continuously back-port major bug-fixes and security patches to released kernels and indicate that by updating the fourth number.

Additionally, When you change the first (major) version number it usually means a significant re-write. Whereas the second version number would mean still mostly the same code-base, but with major features added/removed/rewritten.

Take from this what you will, but to say the version numbers are arbitrary is just plain ignorant.

Re:Uhhg... Why so ignorant, commenters? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222774)

When you write a kernel and have it installed on everything from phones to mainframes, you can decide what the version numbering means. Linus can decide tomorrow to call it Linux 666 and it will still be used.

Sure you describe a fairly typical situation, but not one that is anywhere near universal.

Re:Uhhg... Why so ignorant, commenters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222802)

They are arbitrary. Their meaning depends entirely on the person who sets them.

wrong audience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222824)

. . . because it appears that Linus doesn't give a crap. Personally, I agree with you, that if you choose a numbering scheme, just stick with it unless there is a compelling reason to change. And "40 is too big of a number" does not seem like a compelling reason.

Perhaps the commenters actually read the article. (4, Insightful)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222992)

Take from this what you will, but to say the version numbers are arbitrary is just plain ignorant.

It seems rather strange to label others as ignorant when there is Linus saying "since we no longer do version numbers based on features, but based on time,"

Re:When you change the first (major) version# (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#36223006)

In some senses, you can also use a version # as "ye who shall go before this version number beware of a Grue". After 36 increments of the 2.6 series, I'm sorta for the "freshness" of a 3.0 series. Just to say that "here is our dividing line, we've made all this progress, let's lock it in."

I know, there will be a little fuss, but thinking like a 5 year plan, it's good sometimes to make some dividing lines that progress has been achieved.

I thought it would be 2.7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222558)

After they got rid of the odd = devel, even = stable version conventions (which I actually miss as an end user/sysadmin [but I can see why the devs wanted it the other way around]) So wouldn't linux-next become 2.7? (Or are my ideas of the branching/version conventions wrong.)

Re:I thought it would be 2.7 (1)

MasterPatricko (1414887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222890)

odd = devel, even = stable is still true, but it's in the third digit now e.g. 2.6.37 was devel, 2.6.38 was distro-ready.

Market Consistency (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222604)

Linux 9 Ultimate, Home Premium and Server OF COURSE!

End of the line for the distributions (5, Informative)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222650)

With both RHEL6 and Debian Squeeze on their own versions of 2.6.32, as well as the last Ubuntu LTS 10.04, that version will effectively be the end of the 2.6 line for many places if version numbers jump like this. The kernel versions actively targeted by the -stable team [linux.com] are the only ones some people (including me) are interested in, and this cluster of distributions on 2.6.32 is a good thing in my book. The main issues I'm seeing in newer kernels that I'm concerned about backports of are the continued fixes to weird ext4 bugs happening in newer kernels. Keep those coming, backport drivers for the most common hardware out there, and the rest of the kernel development can march along without me being so worried about it. (Context disclaimer: I worry about PostgreSQL database servers for a living, so my customers are more paranoid about stability than most)

The eventual release of btrfs is one of the things I'd would be glad to see happen only in a kernel that's clearly labeled part of new, less stable development. New filesystems are one of the hardest things to get right, and there's no other class of bugs as likely to lead to major loss of data.

Re:End of the line for the distributions (2)

swillden (191260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222714)

The eventual release of btrfs is one of the things I'd would be glad to see happen only in a kernel that's clearly labeled part of new, less stable development.

Linus is not proposing to create a less-stable development branch. He's not proposing to change the kernel development process at all, just to change the numbering because the major number has become completely useless, the minor number has become somewhat useless and the sub-minor number (where all the action happens) is getting awfully big. Every kernel release will still be considered basically-stable, with the distros being left to do whatever final stabilization is needed.

So what? (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222692)

So Torvaldis is THINKING of changing the version number? Doesn't that basically mean that the number is entirely arbitrary and thus it doesn't make a difference?

April Fools? (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222706)

Aren't we a bit late for an April fools day joke?

Got rid of my last Linux install this weekend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36222794)

I'll never look back. That shit's for the birds.

Re:Got rid of my last Linux install this weekend (1)

matthew_t_west (800388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222882)

You'll be back... for LINUX 3000!

M

Re:Got rid of my last Linux install this weekend (0)

youn (1516637) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222888)

I know it's a troll but this raises an interesting question... can anyone look back on anything... I mean you'd have to have eyes behind your head or have your head rotate 180 degrees for that, no? Let's face it, if you have to turn around to look behind your... your back becomes in front of you :)

Use dating for the minor revision. (1)

mrthoughtful (466814) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222812)

We use a dating system due to the large number of minor revisions, but keep the major revision number - so for instance,

1.2011.03.23.1 := The first minor revision of version 1 of the software that took place on 23rd March 2011.
It gives us the best of both worlds. We spent way too long coming to that solution, but it suits us a lot.

Maybe for Linux it may make sense to move the first minor revision to the left of the revision date.
Outside of that, subdivisions become pretty meaningless anyhow.

If I were Linus, I would start the next revision as 3.2011.mm.dd, using version 3 just to indicate the change in the versioning system is maybe a bit too much of a leap, but it makes a clear break - and also provides an easy enough transition for implementations.

Re:Use dating for the minor revision. (1)

youn (1516637) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222916)

I dated a cute minor revision once, she was sweet and all but had an inferiority complex. Then after she upgraded (plastic surgery), there were major incompatibilities ;). So how does that minor revision dating work, you have a dating web site? Or, when you have rules, because you do that quicker, it is called speed dating? and the major question is mark zuckerberg involved in this version social network?

Always avoid a .0 release! (1)

j.boulton (661381) | more than 3 years ago | (#36222830)

Based on past experience then the 3.0 release will be faster but buggier than the 2.6.40 release would have been.

If it were up to Google... (1)

mordejai (702496) | more than 3 years ago | (#36223014)

...we'd already be on Linux 160.0

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?