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."
They should just put the version numbers up really high. Everything with a high number is popular. Maybe put an XL or a GT on the end for good measure.
Well, perhaps Linux is maturing enough where it could be 2.6 forever.
That's like saying, back in 1996 or so, that Windows 95 is mature enough that we don't need any new operating systems.
There is always room for improvement, new ideas, new architectures, hardware, etc that open up new pathways to more flexible or secure operating system organization.
For the grandparent, it was announced back when 2.6.1 or so was released that there would be no 2.7.x. 2.6.x would be used as development releases, however there would be no official "stable" version, the distributions had to decide which were stable enough for their OSes. I think this was a huge mistake, but the old method wasn't much better. Linus' new proposal fixes pretty much everything that was wrong with the labelling in my opinion.
This would be a good idea. I compiled 2.6.11 this morning on my laptop, and the alsa nm256 driver locks up the machine on boot :(. This has been happening on and off for some time. I found patches in the module developer's cvs that helped me fix it in 2.6.10, but apparently these didn't make it into 2.6.11 (or it got broken in some other way).
2.6 is great and there are lots of great new features and development in the kernel. But it would be good if some dot releases were only bugfix releases because right now I think 2.6 is much less reliable than late 2.4 kernels were. On my laptop this only serves to annoy me, but I run servers at work (and a webserver @ home), and right now I don't feel confident at all running newer 2.6 kernels on a production server.
I do NOT understnnd why he won't just fork off 2.7. 2.6 is unstable and untrustworthy, and it's not going to GET stable until they STOP SCREWING WITH IT.
Linux 2.4, the last stable kernel, has had 29 versions as of this post. Admittedly, the chaos of the first 10 or 11 releases were from exactly the same kind of stupidity we're seeing now, development continuing in the 'stable' branch.
Since 2.4.11, there have been EIGHTEEN PATCHES to get 2.4 to the relative stability it's at now, and even so, it's still not as good as 2.2 on a lot of hardware. A single release is NOT ENOUGH to get things stable. 2.4 is still not that robust, on many configurations, after eighteen patches. There's no way that one patch is gonna do it.
Linux, PLEASE go play in 2.7 and let everyone else get 2.6 stable. It's not trustworthy now, and I will not use 2.6 kernels in any kind of serious production environment because of it. A single release is NOT going to be stable. If you freeze it right this second and branch off to 2.7, the kernel should actually be fairly stable by 2.6.25. With all the extra code in the 2.6 tree, it wouldn't surprise me if it got to 2.6.60 before it was really and truly 'finished'.
Claiming that 'distributions will make it stable' is basically waving your hand in the air and hoping that other people will fix it, while you madly add new problems by dumping untested code into the 'stable' tree.
It's not working, and it's not ever going to work. The longer you keep trying to call a development branch 'stable', the more damage you do to Linux.