Slashdot Mirror
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."
Why not do 3.x, 4.x, ... like every other software developer in the world (well, except Microsoft and Apple...)?
Honestly, I don't understand the insistence on keeping everything at 2.x, 2.x.y, etc. If someone can explain the rationale to me, I'd be quite interested.
Right now, I consider 2.6 not stable enough for my own use. If I cannot compile and boot a Linus kernel on a simple install of GNU/Linux (whether SuSE or Debian) without major headaches and/or chasing down patches, well, that's not stable enough for me. YMMV.
Back in 2.4, I wasn't really happy until 2.4.18, and with all of the changes in 2.6, I won't be surprised to see it meet my definition of stable until 2.6.20 at the current pace.
So, I'm hoping that this new approach will really help.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
that i regularly have seen breakages with stable hardware upon upgrading from one "stable" kernel release to the next. Granted most of them have been ACPI .. which is just a joke. All I gotta say in 2.7 please.
There's nothing that wrong with depending on an organization (be it commercial like Mandrake or non-profit like Debian) to put together an appropriate Kernel for you. That's not to say you shouldn't give BSD a crack (diversity encourages vigour after all), but I don't think there's anything wrong with the way Kernel development is taking place. Those who needs a rock-solid unfliching kernel can always use a 2.4 series kernel, or use BSD (as you suggested).
Indeed, I feel that 2.6 was pushed out prematurely, but many features in it are desparately needed for publicity (for example, a working ACPI), so the kernel needs the "stable" status to give people incentive to use.
The fact that kernel developers are still adding new features suggest that it is still a development kernel. Stable kernels are for bug fixes. If they need new features to fix existing bugs, that's when they should bump up the stable version number.
However, I think version number is already obsolete for Linux kernels. We should be able to manage patchsets as if they're software packages, complete with dependency and conflict information that are automatically computed. When you want a "patch" to be included in your kernel, it looks for patches it depends on, checks to see whether it results in a conflict, and apply the patches. Periodically, "metapatches" are updated to depend on the most recent patches along some feature. More intricacies need to be worked out.
Assuming (0) that there is a demand for such a patch manager---I think the problem with developing it is that (1) it's difficult to develop a realistic test project from ground up using the patch manager, so the patch system can show that its design is useful, and (2) if we use an existing large software project (such as the Linux kernel), programmers for the patch manager would spend too much time following the development for that other project, rather than have useful work done; they might not want to do it. In general, we want to test the patch manager on a big project, but we also risk wasting too much time on the test project.
It would be best if the developers of a large project (can also think about the Linux kernel) will take the initiative into developing a patch manager, since they have a demand for it (or can be convinced to have a demand), already have a realistic software product, and are willing to follow the development of their own project.
I'm saying that there is a seed for an innovative patch management and revision control system from maintaining a Linux kernel. They should do something about it.
I once had a signature.
Arstechnica you say? -- isnt it ironic their site was down for atleast 5 hours about a week back?
Also, look at their uptimes on netcraft. There average uptime plummeted to about half since they switched to windows. Sure its still "good enough", but how can you possibly say 2003 is more stable that linux? - especially substantially more stable?
"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."
From the sounds of things, everyone competent there was utterly against the WindowsNT switch, which was introduced by management, caused horrible delays in shipping all their products, and caused most of the technical guys to leave.
But it sounded so much better as a soundbyte