Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Revamped Linux Kernel Numbering Concluded

Posted by Zonk on from the finer-grained-kerneling dept.

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."

6 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. Just one question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The *.x.y kernels are unstable.
    The *.x only kernels are stable.

    Won't there be a 28 day cycle for
    stability on the *.x only kernel?

  2. Gregkh already made one point release by Xpilot · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can find it in his own subdirectory on kernel.org at:

    http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/greg kh/v2.6.11/

    It includes tiny fixes such as a Dell laptop keyboard fix and a raid6 compilation fix for ppc.

    --
    "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
  3. Why use x-y? by J_Omega · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd have preferred r-theta polar coordinates.

    1. Re:Why use x-y? by MarkRose · · Score: 5, Funny

      That, my friend, is a rad idea!

      --
      Be relentless!
  4. Re:Numbering... eek. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You're not seeing it - once they reach 2.6.x.y.z.z.y the solution to all the kernel's problems will appear.

  5. Re:What was wrong with the old way? by Hackeron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?