On Tuesday 2008-07-15 04:47, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Don't discriminate against odd numbers! :)
I always wanted to see a 2.<odd> on the mingetty login banner just
because that seemed cool, and to hopefully make the last people who
would say "but is not that development series?" finally get the
clue that Linux is not developed in that way anymore.
[in the previous to the previous mail]:
Maybe not individual feature, but as a whole. We probably should have
jumped when the new model was introduced. Ok, that did not happen, but
over time, the kernel's abilities increased and then sometime, there
was a release where you would say (as of today) "yes, that kernel back
there has been a really good one" where a version jump would have been
warranted at the same time. For me, these are 2.6.18, .22, .23 or .25
(pick one). However, there also needs to be a bit of time between minor
number bumps, so if 2.6.18 were 2.7.0, 2.6.25 would be the earliest to
qualify for a 2.8.0.
My expectation is that 2.6.27 would be the next "good one" where a
version jump would go nicely in line. Make it 2.7.0, it got loads
of new features compared to 2.6.0 :)
My preference is of course that version numbers run at the same speed as
they have been for most of the time now - that is, incrementing the
micro as we go. If one were to increment the micro for every release
(2.6.18 -> 2.7, 2.6.19 -> 2.8, 2.6.20 -> 2.9) then that is a magnitude
higher and thus would count as faster-going.
2.1.132 is big.
Numbering should be interesting and sometimes unexpected (like when
there suddently was a 2.<even>.0 announcement in my mailbox, or the
change of development model). The YYYY.r[.s] scheme defeats that, and
it counts fast too, though I am not opposed to YYYY.r.
What I am against is [YYYY-2008].r (8.0, 8.1, 9.0, etc.) since that may
be seen as a version number instead of the year.
--
