No 2.7 ? [LWN.net]

No 2.7 ?

Posted May 23, 2011 22:20 UTC (Mon) by alspnost (guest, #2763)
In reply to: No 2.7 ? by copsewood
Parent article: 2.8.0?

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 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.