Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Torvalds Polls Desire for Linux's Next Major Version Bump

Posted by Soulskill on from the numbers-game dept.

jones_supa writes: Linus Torvalds made this post about Linux version numbering: "So, I made noises some time ago about how I don't want another 2.6.39 where the numbers are big enough that you can't really distinguish them. We're slowly getting up there again, with 3.20 being imminent, and I'm once more close to running out of fingers and toes. I was making noises about just moving to 4.0 some time ago. But let's see what people think. So — continue with v3.20, because bigger numbers are sexy, or just move to v4.0 and reset the numbers to something smaller?" To voice your opinion, the Google+ post allows you to discuss the matter and cast a vote in a poll.

6 of 199 comments (clear)

  1. Not quite sure by Psychotria · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not really sure because I don't know if Linux adheres to Semantic Versioning or not (previous bumps in the major version number might suggest not). Semantic versioning doesn't work for every project but I am pretty sure that (if Linux used semantic versioning) that the next release would not introduce any incompatible changes to the API/ABI.

    1. Re:Not quite sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the Linux kernel does not have adhere to Semantic Versioning. For one thing, it is backwards-compatible until the last user of an userspace ABI either dies or sleeps on the job long enough (a few months) to not notice it is going away in the latest kernel if someone doesn't speak up. There are exceptions to this, mostly related to how painful it is to keep a feature still working, but they are very rare.

      Note: internally the Linux APIs/ABIs change all the time, and breaking anything and everything that is not in-tree is fair game. The stability rules are for the kernel-userspace ABI *only*.

      But it would be nice if we sync'd the major release bumps with something very user-visible.

  2. Why Linus Forces users to use Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It makes me sad. Not about version numbering. Why does Linus force the users to use Google+. It somehow feels very wrong to me.

  3. Re:Is semver too simplistic for kernels? by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Version Numbers in general are outdated for application. The line between a Major and Minor version is huge.
    We have been on Mac OS X (10) for 14 years. with have been getting point updates over the time.
    Microsoft during that time has had 4 Major updates (That is with the insane longevity of XP).
    We have Chrome and Mozilla who for the most part dumped minor versions and we get a Major version every other week.

    In my mind a Major Number should be when there is a large change to the system. Going back and rewriting a lot of code, adding/removing features. While the minor version is just a patch, giving better performance, but the core architecture is nearly identical. Still in my mind, there is a lot of subjective debate.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  4. Join the crowd by swimboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not adopt the new standard, jump your major revision number to 10, and then leave it there forever; just like Apple and Microsoft?

    --
    Ask me how the Heisenberg Principle may or may not have saved my life.
  5. Incremental development by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is artificial to bump the major version every time when the minor version merely begins to "feel too large".

    The development of Linux is mostly incremental. A date code or just a single rolling number might suit the project better.