On 05/23/2011 04:33 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar<mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
cutting 3.0.0! :-)
So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
not "3.0.0" - the stable team would get the third digit rather than
the fourth one.
But no, it wouldn't be for 42. Despite THHGTTG, I think "40" is a
fairly nice round number.
There's also the timing issue - since we no longer do version numbers
based on features, but based on time, just saying "we're about to
start the third decade" works as well as any other excuse.
I don't think year-based versions (like 2011.0 for the first 2011
release, or maybe 2011.5 for May 2011) are pretty, but I'll make an
argument for them anyway: it makes it easier to figure out when hardware
ought to be supported.
So if I buy a 2014-model laptop and the coffee-making button doesn't
work, and my favorite distro is running the 2013 kernel, then I know I
shouldn't expect to it to work. (Graphics drivers are probably a more
realistic example.)
Also, when someone in my lab installs <insert ancient enterprise distro
here> on a box that's running software I wrote that needs to support
modern high-speed peripherals, then I can say "What? You seriously
expect this stuff to work on Linux 2007? Let's install a slightly less
stable distro from at least 2010." This sounds a lot less nerdy than
"What? You seriously expect this stuff to work on Linux 2.6.27? Let's
install a slightly less stable distro that uses at least 2.6.36."
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>