Help Linus decide what to call the next kernel [LWN.net]

Help Linus decide what to call the next kernel

Posted Feb 13, 2015 21:31 UTC (Fri) by Beolach (guest, #77384)
In reply to: Help Linus decide what to call the next kernel by cyperpunks
Parent article: Help Linus decide what to call the next kernel

I concur. On the poll I voted for larger numbers, but since smaller numbers seem to be winning & Linus prefers that, 4.9 -> 5.0 makes a lot more sense in my head than 3.20 or 3.21 or whatever -> 4.0.

Another possibility I thought of, is tying it to LTS versions somehow. Maybe if GregKH says 3.19 (or 3.x) will be a LTS version, then Linus' next release would be 4.0. Then when GregKH says 4.x will be LTS, Linux switches to 5.0. But I don't know how GregKH decides on LTS versions, or if the timing on his decision would work w/ Linus switching the major number...

to post comments

Help Linus decide what to call the next kernel

Posted Feb 13, 2015 22:11 UTC (Fri) by JamesErik (guest, #17417) [Link] (5 responses)

+1 for basing on LTS versions

Help Linus decide what to call the next kernel

Posted Feb 14, 2015 16:05 UTC (Sat) by kreijack (guest, #43513) [Link] (4 responses)

> +1 for basing on LTS versions

I disagree. Ok for 4.0 as a LTS, but the 4.1 what would means ? I read this as "4.1 is the 4.0 plus some bugfix and *minor* changes..." but this is not true.

The whole point of the question is that *today* the major number means anything. At this point I suggest to take year/month as version numbering; something like 15.02. The LTS could be marked with a LTS suffix and a further index for the micro. So:

3.16 -> 14.08LTS
3.16.1..3.16.65 -> 14.08LTS.1 ... 14.08LTS.65
3.17 -> 14.10
3.17.1 -> 14.10.1
3.18 -> 14.12
3.18.7 -> 14.12.7
3.19 -> 15.02

Help Linus decide what to call the next kernel

Posted Feb 15, 2015 15:39 UTC (Sun) by fandingo (guest, #67019) [Link] (3 responses)

> I disagree. Ok for 4.0 as a LTS, but the 4.1 what would means ?

That's not what the recommendation is. The major version number rolls over *after* the LTS release. If the current release were to become LTS, then LTS is 3.19. For subsequent bugfixes to that LTS, they could either do 3.20, 3.21, etc., or 3.19.1, 3.19.2, etc.

The next kernel release would be 4.0. Then, at some later point, there's a 4.15 (or whatever) that becomes LTS, and the kernel next regular release becomes 5.0.

The *last* minor release number for a major version is the LTS, not the first minor release number for a major version.

I don't like the idea, though, probably because I don't use LTS kernels. I'd rather do it date based. I would rather avoid the Y2K problem and use YYYY.MM, though.

Help Linus decide what to call the next kernel

Posted Feb 16, 2015 9:47 UTC (Mon) by dany (guest, #18902) [Link]

this is best recommendation in whole thread, numbering based on LTS release, very clever and simple

Help Linus decide what to call the next kernel

Posted Feb 16, 2015 17:43 UTC (Mon) by Kamilion (subscriber, #42576) [Link] (1 responses)

Rolling over to a higher Major version on the heels of LTS kernels somewhere around the fingers-and-toes mark does indeed sound like a pretty good plan. It's been around four years since the last major bump; at this rate, we'd be at linux 10.0.0 around 2043, and 20.0.0 by 2083. That's a pretty reasonable progression rate that could outlast Linus's Head In A Jar, if Futurama's anything to go by.

Help Linus decide what to call the next kernel

Posted Feb 17, 2015 14:51 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

But then Linus won't have any fingers *or* toes to count on and we'll start using just a major version number ;) .

Help Linus decide what to call the next kernel

Posted Feb 14, 2015 0:43 UTC (Sat) by ncm (guest, #165) [Link]

+1 for objective branching criteria of any sort. This one is good.