Slashdot Mirror
Linux Kernel Release Numbering Revisited
An anonymous reader writes "KernelTrap has a summary of a lengthy discussion on the Linux kernel mailing list, in which Linus Torvalds has suggested using an alternative numbering scheme for kernel development. The current 2.6 kernel has been different than older development trees, as active development has been happening at a rapid rate in the officially "stable" kernel, instead of forking the expected 2.7 "development branch" for this effort. In Linus' latest proposal, he suggests using the same odd and even arrangement where an odd number signifies a development release, and an even number signifies a stable release. The difference being that this will all happen under 2.6 and thus at a much more rapid rate. For example, the upcoming 2.6.12 release would focus on fixing bugs and thus be more stable, while the following 2.6.13 release would include new functionality and thus could be less stable."
This isn't such an issue if yoyu were migrating from 2.4.20-29 you wouldn't go to 2.6.0-7 you'd go for 8/9/10/11. Thre really isn't a feature gap because even though 2.6.0 is bigger than 2.4.29 it is from a parrellel branch. It was released much earlier than 2.4.29. You really shouldn't be going to a kernel that is significantly chronologiclly older. 2.4.29 is there for people who can't don't want to migrate to 2.6 series kernels. It would be much more chaotic and dangerous to drop the old kernel series as soon as a new one is released. Furthermore, 99% of backports are bug fixes and drivers.