| |||||||||||||
Kernel version number questionKernel version number questionPosted Jun 2, 2011 20:57 UTC (Thu) by przemoc (subscriber, #67594)In reply to: Kernel version number question by pr1268 Parent article: A conversation with Linus at LinuxCon Japan
I think that returning to 2-number (and 3-number for stable) major.minor(.patch) was main reason for choosing 3 over 2.8.
OTOH I don't get why there is need to go up to .20 or something equally long (i.e. having more than one digit) as minor. If it is about having short numbers, then let's increase major after each minor = 9, or maybe even better after each two-years, because AFAIR we haven't ever get more than 5 kernels in a year. So there would be 3.0 - 3.5/3.6 in 2011+2012, 4.0 - 4.9 in 2013+2014, and so on...
(Log in to post comments)
Kernel version number question Posted Jun 2, 2011 21:08 UTC (Thu) by przemoc (subscriber, #67594) [Link]
> So there would be 3.0 - 3.5/3.6 in 2011+2012, 4.0 - 4.9 in 2013+2014, and so on...
And for the problem of release after 9.9 (in 2025) we can always use hex digits and delay problem for 12 years (or go with full g-z - getting another 40 years). ;)
It's not sure whether Linus still will be the Linux maintainer after 66 years from now. Some successor may come up and obviously rename it to her/his name with last letter changed to x...
Kernel version number question Posted Jun 5, 2011 7:45 UTC (Sun) by kragil (subscriber, #34373) [Link]
Going "decimal" gets my vote.
So after 3.9 4.O should be the next version.
Simple and beautiful IMO.
|
|||||||||||||