| |||||||||||||
A conversation with Linus at LinuxCon JapanA conversation with Linus at LinuxCon JapanPosted Jun 2, 2011 16:50 UTC (Thu) by Yorick (subscriber, #19241)In reply to: A conversation with Linus at LinuxCon Japan by viiru Parent article: A conversation with Linus at LinuxCon Japan
Maybe; we shall see how the numbering evolves. I did not detect any concrete new policy for when to increment the major number, so it's a reasonable guess that it will stay at 3 until Linus decides once again that a sufficient amount of time has passed or that the minor number has become "too big".
(Log in to post comments)
A conversation with Linus at LinuxCon Japan Posted Jun 2, 2011 19:54 UTC (Thu) by jimparis (subscriber, #38647) [Link]
Yes, it's a very reasonable guess -- since this article specifically says that he plans on moving on from 3.x when he hits 3.20 or so.
A conversation with Linus at LinuxCon Japan Posted Jun 3, 2011 0:01 UTC (Fri) by aegl (subscriber, #37581) [Link]
If people would prefer some concrete metric as the deciding point for the switch for 3.x -> 4.0 ... how about "When either a third of the code present in 3.0 has been replaced, or the total lines of code doubles - whichever comes first".
That way you have a clear reason why you want to start the 4.x series - either because there is not much 3.0 left, or because the additions dwarf the original.
Here's an out-of-date graph that shows how total code size grew from 2.6.12 to 2.6.37 ... while code from each release was gradually nibbled away by later releases:
A conversation with Linus at LinuxCon Japan Posted Jun 3, 2011 11:41 UTC (Fri) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]
Damn those geology courses I took, they will haunt me forever. :-)
News Flash: Linux kernel history follows a cuesta system
|
|||||||||||||
