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.
--
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
