Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?

[Rene Herman]

On 15-07-08 20:04, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Clearly, the 2. prefix has long outlived its usefulness as far as Linux 
> is concerned, and probably the 6 as well.

Been calling the -stable branches v20, v21, v22, ... here.

I do believe the numbering scheme should at least ostensibly still be 
feature driven, not be a fully robotic date thing. With the latter, you 
definitely miss out on press-opportunities and that's not even meant 
cynical. There just is a bit of industry around Linux and the promotion 
opportunities of (say) "Linux 3" are really lots, lots bigger than 
anything boringly date based.

That even holds for things like books -- I just bet that a "all new, 
covers Linux 3!" blurp on the cover sells lots more copies than a "all 
new, covers the march 21st 2009 version of Linux!" one.

But yes, the current monotic increase is definitely getting a bit boring 
as well. The kernel as of 2.6.26 is quite different from the kernel that 
was known as 2.6.0 so just be creative I'd say and set a 2.8 goal. Next 
version can be 2.9 (should be clear enough by then) and then watch world 
domination happen with the big 3.0 release.

Linux 2010.5? Boooooooooring....

Rene.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/