No 2.7 ? [LWN.net]

No 2.7 ?

Posted May 23, 2011 22:02 UTC (Mon) by copsewood (subscriber, #199)
Parent article: 2.8.0?

Whatever happened to 2.7 ? But I suppose something similar happened between IPv4 and IPv6, there never was a genuine v5.

No 2.7 ?

Posted May 23, 2011 22:20 UTC (Mon) by alspnost (guest, #2763) [Link] (4 responses)

Hmmm, it's almost like you're new to this game! It's been so long since 2.5 that people have forgotten there used to be development series numbered 2.[odd] :)

No 2.7 ?

Posted May 24, 2011 8:09 UTC (Tue) by gilboa (guest, #23856) [Link]

As much as I love the 2.6/stable model, I do miss the feeling of living on the 2.5.x edge :)

No 2.7 ?

Posted May 24, 2011 21:01 UTC (Tue) by xtifr (guest, #143) [Link] (2 responses)

But there aren't development branches any more, so the reason for skipping 2.7 no longer exists. There actually was a 2.5 branch, even if it was the development branch. If Linus jumps to 2.8, there won't be any 2.7 series at all!

Of course, if he jumps to 2.8, then he's got the option of restarting the development branches, starting with 2.9, whereas if he makes 2.7 a release branch, it pretty much commits the project to not using odd-numbered development branches for a long time. So if he wants to keep that option open, jumping to 2.8 makes sense, but otherwise, it seems pointless and a bit weird.

No 2.7 ?

Posted May 25, 2011 11:01 UTC (Wed) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link] (1 responses)

For good or ill people have grown accustomed to Linux and its even-is-stable convention. Going to 2.7 would be unnecessarily confusing, bad marketing and probably scary.

No 2.7 ?

Posted May 25, 2011 11:42 UTC (Wed) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

Really? It's been 8 years since an odd-is-unstable version! It's not too long now till we reach half the life of the kernel (in years) since there was an odd version...and I'd bet that already more than half the users *and* the developers weren't touching linux before 2.6.0.

Actually there was...

Posted May 24, 2011 6:47 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (2 responses)

But I suppose something similar happened between IPv4 and IPv6, there never was a genuine v5.

Yes and no. IPv5 was fringe experimental protocol (and it was not actually called IPv5 but it's authors), but it still took the slot. There are nothing to do this for Linux: AFAICS 2.7 was never used by anyone.

Actually there was...

Posted May 24, 2011 21:07 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

iirc 2.7 does already exist.

It was invoked by our friendly legal clowns the SCOG people, who complained that it was one of the versions of linux that infringed their precious eye pee.

Cheers,
Wol

Have they shown this version to the world?

Posted May 25, 2011 6:00 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I think only pointer to the version 2.7 exist. They just used time machine to fine complaint and missed correct time frame. That's why they lost: Linux currently does not infringe but it will.

To not escalate time paradox any further we must create version 2.7 ASAP.