Posted Sep 7, 2008 21:13 UTC (Sun) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022)
In reply to: Hobby Horse by Baylink
Parent article: Linux 3.0?
Please explain the breakage you imply to the natural upgrade assumptions, making reference to your parent post. Removing cruft *is* an upgrade, AFAICT, and I said nothing that should imply backwards progress linked to forwards numbers. 3.0 will mean something, whatever the process that is linked to that number happens to be. Ripping out cruft is simply the discussed process for calling the 3.0 flag this time.
Also, didn't I explicitly reject reusing the major revision flag for this exact reason?
And, you're misusing bike-shed; the canonical usage which has been followed above is as an object, not a container, and the reference is to what color we'll paint it. Absent that allusion, what are you talking about WRT Linus, numbering, and "wacky schemes" that would violate incremental version-numbering?