Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linus on Kernel Version Numbering

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the you're-using-slashdot-T_2_5_0_212 dept.

walshy007 writes "In a recent thread it was asked what it would take for an 'unstable' 2.7 development tree to be created, to which Linus replied: 'Nothing. I'm not going back to the old model. The new model is so much better that it's not even worth entertaining as a theory to go back. That said, I _am_ considering changing just the numbering. Not to go back to the old model, but because a constantly increasing minor number leads to big numbers. I'm not all that thrilled with "26" as a number: it's hard to remember. I think the time-based releases (ie the "2 weeks of merge window until -rc1, followed by roughly two months of stabilization") has been so successful that I'd prefer to skip the version numbering model too. We don't do releases based on "features" any more, so why should we do version _numbering_ based on "features"?'"

3 of 416 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Linus... by The+Warlock · · Score: 0, Redundant

    oh noes, the numbering scheme isn't the way you want it?

    Seriously, if I could pick a least important part of the kernel development to complain about...

    --
    I've upped my standards, so up yours.
  2. Name them all! by yoinkityboinkity · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Like hurricanes. Next comes release Brittany!

  3. Re:A suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Registry#Locations

    It's not exactly hidden.