A recent lkml [1] thread explored an interesting tangent when Jeff Garzik asked about what was to follow the 2.5 development kernel, "is it definitely to be named 2.6? Maybe it's just my impression from development speed, but it felt more like a 3.0 to me :)". Linux creator Linus Torvalds first suggested that there was no reason to skip from 2.5 to 3.0, qualifying it with, "But hey, it's just a number. I don't feel that strongly either way."
Ingo Molnar reflected on the significant improvements we've seen to the VM and the IO subsystem, going so far as to say, "I think due to these improvements if we dont call the next kernel 3.0 then probably no Linux kernel in the future will deserve a major number. In 2-4 years we'll only jump to 3.0 because there's no better number available after 2.8."
Linus agreed that if the VM is as good as it seems to be, indeed the upcoming release deserves to be called 3.0. But he also pointed out that there are many silent users who tend not to speak up until there is an official release. He asks, "people who are having VM trouble with the current 2.5.x series, please _complain_, and tell what your workload is. Don't sit silent and make us think we're good to go.. And if Ingo is right, I'll do the 3.0.x thing."
From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice driver Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:07:06 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > no need to be mindful of that. > > Let's get it right, rather than rush it... Which imples that it's 2.7 material. For 2.6.x I care about getting the drivers _working_. The whole logging discussion with hardened drivers etc is _not_ adding value to normal people until much much later, and it sound very much to me like one of those patch sets that some vendors will care about deeply because they have some big company that cares and pays them. Those kinds of patch-sets sometimes never make it into the standard kernel. They have to prove their worth to real people first, and I could care less (but not much) about paperwork reasons. Linus
From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice driver Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 22:27:59 -0400 Linus Torvalds wrote: > For 2.6.x I care about getting the drivers _working_. Tangent question, is it definitely to be named 2.6? Maybe it's just my impression from development speed, but it felt more like a 3.0 to me :) Jeff
From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice driver Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 21:45:51 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > For 2.6.x I care about getting the drivers _working_. > > Tangent question, is it definitely to be named 2.6? I see no real reason to call it 3.0. The order-of-magnitude threading improvements might just come closest to being a "new thing", but yeah, I still consider it 2.6.x. We don't have new architectures or other really fundamental stuff. In many ways the jump from 2.2 -> 2.4 was bigger than the 2.4 -> 2.6 thing will be, I suspect. But hey, it's just a number. I don't feel that strongly either way. I think version number inflation (can anybody say "distribution makers"?) is a bit silly, and the way the kernel numbering works there is no reason to bump the major number for regular releases. Linus
From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice driver Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:46:35 +0200 (CEST) On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Tangent question, is it definitely to be named 2.6? > > I see no real reason to call it 3.0. > > The order-of-magnitude threading improvements might just come closest to > being a "new thing", but yeah, I still consider it 2.6.x. We don't have > new architectures or other really fundamental stuff. In many ways the > jump from 2.2 -> 2.4 was bigger than the 2.4 -> 2.6 thing will be, I > suspect. i consider the VM and IO improvements one of the most important things that happened in the past 5 years - and it's definitely something that users will notice. Finally we have a top-notch VM and IO subsystem (in addition to the already world-class networking subsystem) giving significant improvements both on the desktop and the server - the jump from 2.4 to 2.5 is much larger than from eg. 2.0 to 2.4. I think due to these improvements if we dont call the next kernel 3.0 then probably no Linux kernel in the future will deserve a major number. In 2-4 years we'll only jump to 3.0 because there's no better number available after 2.8. That i consider to be ... boring :) [while kernel releases are supposed to be a bit boring, i dont think they should be _that_ boring.] Ingo
From: jw schultz Subject: Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice driver Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 02:16:34 -0700 On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 09:46:35AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > Tangent question, is it definitely to be named 2.6? > > > > I see no real reason to call it 3.0. > > > > The order-of-magnitude threading improvements might just come closest to > > being a "new thing", but yeah, I still consider it 2.6.x. We don't have > > new architectures or other really fundamental stuff. In many ways the > > jump from 2.2 -> 2.4 was bigger than the 2.4 -> 2.6 thing will be, I > > suspect. > > i consider the VM and IO improvements one of the most important things > that happened in the past 5 years - and it's definitely something that > users will notice. Finally we have a top-notch VM and IO subsystem (in > addition to the already world-class networking subsystem) giving > significant improvements both on the desktop and the server - the jump > from 2.4 to 2.5 is much larger than from eg. 2.0 to 2.4. > > I think due to these improvements if we dont call the next kernel 3.0 then > probably no Linux kernel in the future will deserve a major number. In 2-4 > years we'll only jump to 3.0 because there's no better number available > after 2.8. That i consider to be ... boring :) [while kernel releases are > supposed to be a bit boring, i dont think they should be _that_ boring.] > Ingo, I agree with Linus. My recollection of when we moved to 2.0 was that the major number reflected the userkernel ABI. I have no problem with a version 2.42 if things stay stable that long. I hope they don't but that is another issue. Version 3.0 implies incompatibility with binaries from 2.x The distributions can play around with version numbers reflecting the GUI interface, libraries or installers but the kernel major version should stay the same until binary compatibility is broken. When we move old syscalls (such as 32 bit file ops) from deprecated to unsupported is when we increment the major number. It may be that 2.7 will see the cruft cut out and be the end of 2.x but 2.5 isn't that. So far 2.5 is performance enhancement. Terrific performance enhancement, thanks to you and many others. But it isn't adding major new features nor is it removing old interfaces. In many ways 2.6 looks like a sign that the 2.x kernel is getting mature. 2.6 means users can expect improvements but don't have to make big changes. 2.6 is an upgrade, 3.0 would be a replacement. -- ________________________________________________________________ J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies email address: [email blocked] Remember Cernan and Schmitt
From: Horst von Brand Subject: Kernel version [Was: Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice driver] Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:40:22 -0400 Ingo Molnar said: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > Tangent question, is it definitely to be named 2.6? > > > > I see no real reason to call it 3.0. > > > > The order-of-magnitude threading improvements might just come closest to > > being a "new thing", but yeah, I still consider it 2.6.x. We don't have > > new architectures or other really fundamental stuff. In many ways the > > jump from 2.2 -> 2.4 was bigger than the 2.4 -> 2.6 thing will be, I > > suspect. > > i consider the VM and IO improvements one of the most important things > that happened in the past 5 years - and it's definitely something that > users will notice. Finally we have a top-notch VM and IO subsystem (in > addition to the already world-class networking subsystem) giving > significant improvements both on the desktop and the server - the jump > from 2.4 to 2.5 is much larger than from eg. 2.0 to 2.4. But is is as large as the jump from 1.2.x to 2.0.x? > I think due to these improvements if we dont call the next kernel 3.0 then > probably no Linux kernel in the future will deserve a major number. In 2-4 > years we'll only jump to 3.0 because there's no better number available > after 2.8. That i consider to be ... boring :) [while kernel releases are > supposed to be a bit boring, i dont think they should be _that_ boring.] What is wrong with 2.10, or 2.256 for that matter? -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +[blocked] Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +[blocked] Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +[blocked]
From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: v2.6 vs v3.0 Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 18:31:45 -0700 (PDT) On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > i consider the VM and IO improvements one of the most important things > that happened in the past 5 years - and it's definitely something that > users will notice. Finally we have a top-notch VM and IO subsystem (in > addition to the already world-class networking subsystem) giving > significant improvements both on the desktop and the server - the jump > from 2.4 to 2.5 is much larger than from eg. 2.0 to 2.4. Hey, _if_ people actually are universally happy with the VM in the current 2.5.x tree, I'll happily call the dang thing 5.0 or whatever (just kidding, but yeah, that would be a good enough reason to bump the major number). However, I'll believe that when I see it. Usually people don't complain during a development kernel, because they think they shouldn't, and then when it becomes stable (ie when the version number changes) they are surprised that the behabviour didn't magically improve, and _then_ we get tons of complaints about how bad the VM is under their load. Am I hapyy with current 2.5.x? Sure. Are others? Apparently. But does that mean that we have a top-notch VM and we should bump the major number? I wish. The block IO cleanups are important, and that was the major thing _I_ personally wanted from the 2.5.x tree when it was opened. I agree with you there. But I don't think they are major-number-material. Anyway, people who are having VM trouble with the current 2.5.x series, please _complain_, and tell what your workload is. Don't sit silent and make us think we're good to go.. And if Ingo is right, I'll do the 3.0.x thing. Linus
- Google archive of above threads [thread 1 [2]] [thread 2 [3]]