Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?

[Jan Engelhardt]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/