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

Re:Here's an idea...

[MarcQuadra]

Because bumps to the major version number indicate HUGE-scale rewrites, while the minor (.6 in this case) define feature-complete stable branches, and the trailing number at the end is for bugfixes and minor enhancements.

This is the way software SHOULD be versioned. It's the way Apple is versioning now, and it's the way Microsoft versions it's core systems (Windows XP SP2 = NT 5.1.2600).

Personally, I'd like for the odd-minor devel releases to go away and find some better way of versioning those, but everything else to-date has been sensible and sane, and I've been compiling my own kernels since the 2.1 series.

Unavoidable

[Mark_MF-WN]

I think this is the unavoidable result of the Linux kernel's versatility. It's designed to be able to run on such a wide variety of hardware, from wee little embedded chips to multiprocessor monstrosities. It's able to run with some much old, obsolete hardware, cutting edge hardware, specialized hardware, etc. There's constantly new hardware coming out that needs to be supported, specific security requirements, etc. There's no way for the Kernel team to have it be everything to everyone at once. The natural result is the it's up to a distributor to put it all together, and choose appropriate combinations of patches.

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).

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[pikine]

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.

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[Hackeron]

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?