On Tuesday 24 May 2011, 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. But if I do 3.0, then I'd be chucking that whole thing out the > window, and the next release would be 3.1, 3.2, etc.. I like that. While I don't really care if you call it 2.7, 2.8 or 3.0 (or 4.0 even, if you want to keep continuity following .38 and .39), the current 2.5/2.6 numbering cycle is almost 10 years old and has obviously lost all significance. The only reason I can see that would make it worthwhile waiting for is if the enterprise and embedded people were to decide on a common longterm kernel and call that e.g. 2.7.x or 2.8.x while you continue with 2.9.x or 3.0.x or 3.x. My impression is however that the next longterm release is still one or two years away, so probably not worth waiting for and hard to estimate in advance. > 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. We still have stable and unstable releases, except that you call the unstable ones -rcX and they are all nice and short, unlike the infamous 2.1.xxx series ;-) IMHO simply changing the names from 2.6.40-rcX to 2.7.X and from 2.6.40.X to 2.6.8.X etc would be the most straightforward change if you want to save the 3.0 release for a special moment. Enough bike shedding from my side, please just make a decision. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
