Revamped Linux Kernel Numbering Concluded

kernel_dan writes "Following on the heels of a prior discussion about a kernel numbering scheme, KernelTrap has the conclusion. From summary: "Linus Torvalds decided against trying to add meaning to the odd/even least significant number. Instead, the new plan is to go from the current 2.6.x numbering to a finer-grained 2.6.x.y. Linus will continue to maintain only the 2.6.x releases, and the -rc releases in between. Others will add trivial patches to create the 2.6.x.y releases. Linus cautions that the task of maintaining a 2.6.x.y tree is not going to be enjoyable.'" Torvalds suggested specific guidelines to alleviate burn-out of the .y maintainer and Greg KH volunteered to begin maintainership."

Comments

Someone else wanted to hold the toy

[Anonymous Coward]

The new numbering scheme seems to be designed to give various junior-Linus types the chance to run the show, if only for a .short time.

Numbering... eek.

[Faust7]

Others will add trivial patches to create the 2.6.x.y releases. Linus cautions that the task of maintaining a 2.6.x.y tree is not going to be enjoyable.

2.6.x...
2.6.x.y...
2.6.x.y.z...

Kind of a Zeno's Paradox, isn't it?

What was wrong with the old way?

[AdamHaeder]

What was wrong with .4 being stable and .5 being test? Why not start a .7?

I haven't been following the kernel mailing list, but as a regular linux user from way back, I'm not clear on why the old way was dropped. This way seems a lot more confusing to me.

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[A beautiful mind]

The developers just felt there is no urgent need for 2.7 yet and also that 2.6 can accept more features in a semi-stable state than it would be truly a need for 2.7.

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[Atzanteol]

They're trying for a more rapid development cycle. 2.6 hasn't feature frozen like in the past.

It seems to be what the vendors want. RedHat 2.4 kernels have so much 2.6 stuff back-ported they're barely 2.4 anymore.

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[Malor]

I've only ever had one comment modded down as Flamebait.... this may be #2.

As near as I can tell from reading recent comments on this particular decision, the single biggest reason they don't want to do 2.7 is because not enough people will test it. Only by calling it 'stable' can they get enough testers. Of course, the fact that it will now never really BE stable, seems to have been lost on them.

This is better than what they have been doing, but only slightly. What Linus seems to really want is for everyone in the whole world to be using the very most recent kernel. He wants, in essence, everyone in the world to be beta testers. By putting out new code and calling it 'stable', he gets hundreds of thousands of testers, and is able to shake out bugs much faster.

Apparently, the possibility that it might be banks and hospitals that are discovering these bugs didn't occur to them. Discovering a bug is an EXTREMELY PAINFUL PROCESS for someone who isn't expecting one. So instead of doing the nasty hard work of maintaining separate stable and development branches, they push that pain onto everyone else in the world.

Personally, I want software that works more than I want the latest whizbang feature. That's why I got onto Linux in the first place, a decade ago... I was frustrated with Windows. It was such a delight to run software that never, ever crashed. It was crude, it was simple, but it was *incredibly* reliable, and that more than any other single thing is why I switched.

I find it quite ironic that Windows 2003, in the hands of capable admins, with all its design flaws and warts, is substantially more stable than is Linux. There's a reason Ars Technica switched from Linux to Windows, and stayed there. If anyone on the planet is competent, it's those guys. And from the sound of it, they're very happy with the results.

At this point, I'm so disgusted with this state of affairs that I'm running a test installation of FreeBSD. Their development cycle is much saner. They don't have as many features, but the ones they DO have, seem to work. Maybe they should add a new motto: "Software by Adults, for Folks Who Could Lose Their Job if it Breaks".

*sigh*

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[Zork the Almighty]

Well, eventually you have to lock it down and call it stable. Their problem stems from trying to get too much milage out of each version. Just because 2.4 and 2.6 were huge leaps doesn't mean that will always be the way to go. They should lock down 2.6, put the "semi-stable" features into 2.7, and release 2.8 in a year or a year and a half. Save the big changes for 3.0. Unless they have some secret plan to konquer the world, nothing good will come from the current process.

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[cerberusss]

I've only ever had one comment modded down as Flamebait.... this may be #2.

That's because your post smells like a troll.

Personally, I want software that works more than I want the latest whizbang feature

So, Linus barged into your office with a gun, demanding you run the latest kernel?

For what you want (sane development cycle), there are DISTRIBUTIONS. What's wrong with distributions, I ask you?

I'm a RedHat (not Fedora) man myself, but the sysadmins at work prefer Debian. To each his own, but there is noone that forces an unstable kernel down your throat.

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[dont_think_twice]

Apparently, the possibility that it might be banks and hospitals that are discovering these bugs didn't occur to them.

Please name the banks or hospitals that upgrade kernels every time Linus make a point release. If they really exist, I want to be sure to stay clear of them.

Re:This should help, if disciplined

[MarcQuadra]

What exactly are you doing that 2.6 isn't cooked-enough for your needs yet?

I'm really curious because I felt that after the disaster that the early 2.4 series was, the kernel team really pushed a good 2.6 release out and it's been quite smooth from 2.6.5.

Are you running strange hardware or binary-only drivers or something?

You know

[mcc]

Linus Tourvalds keeps insisting he's just a coder and nothing more, and Alan Cox and everybody keep insisting he's just a coder and nothing more, but watching him in situations like this... he really is is disturbingly competent as a project manager. Like, to a degree that betrays a large amount of talent. I think he and others really sell him short... but of course one of the reasons he's so effective is because the relatively unassuming way in which he approaches things means people's attention is diverted elsewhere, thus allowing him to actually get stuff done :P

I don't like it

[erroneus]

I think Linus is very right that it will create a lot of headache for a lot of well-meaning people. It will also create a bunch of little dictators whose mark in Linux history will be more important to them than the continual growth and evolution of the one main kernel progression.

I think instead, it is better to identify any kernel branch by the maintainer or distribution it comes from... pretty much as it already is. When I first started using Linux, I thought nothing of compiling a new kernel and getting things all tweaked out, installing patches and stuff like that. But lately, I see value in following structure in systems such as seeking out RPMs rather than compiling new things. It is far more simple and a lot less frustrating at times trying to keep up with my own set of kernel patches. (Oh, I cannot upgrade to the newest kernel because the So-n-so patch hasn't been updated yet) While the same is true or even slightly worse when it comes to RPM dependency, there is at least some structure and predictability to be found.

I predict that the change will be short lived as it will be found that people will become frustrated with keeping up with all these kernel revisions.

Re:Here's an idea...

[MidnightBrewer]

I suspect the recent trend over the years to stay attached to point-point-point releases, especially for those projects that take forever and a day to hit 1.0, isn't so much an honesty thing as a sub-conscious desire to avoid responsibility for mistakes. I'm not referring to legal liability so much as professional pride. "Of course it has bugs, it's still not 1.0!" I'm sorry, but that's not realistic. People don't get paid to be perfectionists; that's a conceit to be enjoyed on your own time.

You do your best, you release it as 1.0, and then you start all over again to fix bugs and work towards the next full release. Making the numbers smaller doesn't change the quality of your software, it just helps a programmer live with the perceived embarrassment of not writing the perfect piece of code. In the final analysis, the numbers are all arbitrary; any sense of pride in your work or shame about your mistakes is a personal issue. Take Apple as an example. You could strip the 10 off of 10.3.8 and say that they are on version 3.8 of OS X. That means that version 4.0 is just around the corner, and that makes their turn-around cycle sound that much more impressive. To those who protest that a full point release demands unbelievable innovation and "drastic code re-writes," I have to ask, "Where is that written?" In the final analysis, versioning is all in your head. :)

Re:Why use x-y?

[J_Omega]

Depends on what you consider "natural" though, right? I'm willing to bet that the first human use of a coordinate system was polar. ie. "go 1000 paces, that-a-way"

Scared of 3

[squoozer]

What is with people. Most open source projects seem to be scared of the number 1 so every piece of software is 0.x.y.z now the kernel people have become afraid of 3 (or maybe 7) either way this is just silly. I can see it now, in twenty years time we will be up to 2.9.9.9.9.3.8.1 because nobody will take the plunge and call it 3. At least the emacs people got a grip and just dropped the 0.

Re:Scared of 3

[GoCoGi]

No, that's okay. It should only become 3 when it becomes binary-incompatible with userspace applications.

Confused?

[wiggles]

See this.

too much classification

[Anonymous Coward]

I've reached the conclusion classification is one of the biggest wastes of time. We spend more time deciding how to nest folders within folders within folders, classifying people by numbers and race and social bracket, and now giving meaning to digits in a kernel number.

Why?

Who really cares if a kernel is a major rewrite or not? What's wrong with a single number? In theory you would have development kernels labelled with a timestamp and then only release the stable ones publicly with a regular version.
kernel 0
kernel 1
kernel 2
etc.

The strange numbering schemes and now the stupid debates over how to re-number future kernels is such a waste of time! Linus and friends could actually be fixing the 2.6.x CD burning fiasco instead.

version naming is political art

[10am-bedtime]

well, i'm not a big fan of prescriptive labeling in general.

Too many branches/sub-branches

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm trying to think of how many potential 'stable' branched versions there will end up being

2.6.x
2.6.x.y
2.6.x-rcx
2.6.x-mmx
2.6.x-rcx- mmx
2.6.x-as
2.6.x-gk
2.6.x-ac

Personally, I think that is ludicrously too many branches to have co ordinated development done.

In my mind and I accept I may be _mad_, it would seem to make sense to have a
release, stable and testing branch... and that's it.

I _thought_ that 2.6.x was supposed to be 'stable' and that -mm was supposed to be the equivalent of 2.7... but, now it looks as if 2.6.x will be a kind of 'beta' stable... with 2.6.x.y being the 'real' stable branch.

But, then there are all the other little patchsets from -** to contend with, also...

I think the versoning model is becoming highly unwieldly.... which is sad, because I consider myself a Linux zealot... so I don't like coming to this conclusion..

I hope I'm wrong.

Re:Here's an idea...

[advocate_one]

you do realise that 2.6 is a massive rewrite of 2.4. Whole subsystems are completely different along with wholly new APIs to talk to devices etc. Perhaps we should have gone to 3.0 instead of 2.6, then there would be less hassle by having dev work going on in 3.1, backporting interesting stuff when it's working properly to 3.0...

Re:Here's an idea...

[Cthefuture]

It's not exactly the same. It's version 5.1 build 2600. A build number is a lot different than an actual version number.

Personally I think many projects (especially open-source) are getting out of hand with the version numbers. Just look at some of the version information on some Debian packages.

I mean, you have stuff like version "testing-4.3.0.dfsg.1-12.0.1". Does no one else see that as insane? I know each part has a purpose, but it seems more like improper project management. Is this possibly caused by a lack of proper scheduling? Things take too long and people start branching off into separate sub-versions.

It's the same thing with the kernel. I see no reason for official kernels to have so many frickin sub-versions. KISS, please. I think you reach a certain point and then the versions have lost all meaning. End-users can't keep track of all this stuff. Please implement better project management practices and just do actual releases with a simple versioning scheme.