From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, DRI <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-fsdevel" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
Subject: Re: (Short?) merge window reminder
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 09:55:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201105240955.43229.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikGfVSAMY2a2yiXaNpvBVvF8YdMEA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tuesday 24 May 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Another advantage of switching numbering models (ie 3.0 instead of
> 2.8.x) would be that it would also make the "odd numbers are also
> numbers" transition much more natural.
>
> Because of our historical even/odd model, I wouldn't do a 2.7.x -
> there's just too much history of 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 being development
> trees. But if I do 3.0, then I'd be chucking that whole thing out the
> window, and the next release would be 3.1, 3.2, etc..
I like that. While I don't really care if you call it 2.7, 2.8 or 3.0
(or 4.0 even, if you want to keep continuity following .38 and .39),
the current 2.5/2.6 numbering cycle is almost 10 years old and has
obviously lost all significance.
The only reason I can see that would make it worthwhile waiting for
is if the enterprise and embedded people were to decide on a common
longterm kernel and call that e.g. 2.7.x or 2.8.x while you continue with
2.9.x or 3.0.x or 3.x. My impression is however that the next longterm
release is still one or two years away, so probably not worth waiting
for and hard to estimate in advance.
> Because all our releases are supposed to be stable releases these
> days, and if we get rid of one level of numbering, I feel perfectly
> fine with getting rid of the even/odd history too.
We still have stable and unstable releases, except that you call the
unstable ones -rcX and they are all nice and short, unlike the infamous
2.1.xxx series ;-)
IMHO simply changing the names from 2.6.40-rcX to 2.7.X and from
2.6.40.X to 2.6.8.X etc would be the most straightforward change
if you want to save the 3.0 release for a special moment.
Enough bike shedding from my side, please just make a decision.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-24 7:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-23 19:13 (Short?) merge window reminder Linus Torvalds
2011-05-23 19:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-23 20:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-05-23 20:52 ` Alexey Zaytsev
2011-05-25 14:12 ` Boaz Harrosh
2011-05-25 22:21 ` Tony Luck
2011-05-26 16:38 ` Boaz Harrosh
2011-05-23 21:59 ` Oliver Pinter
2011-05-23 22:21 ` Greg KH
2011-05-23 23:40 ` Matthew Wilcox
2011-05-23 23:10 ` jonsmirl
2011-05-23 23:17 ` Ted Ts'o
2011-05-23 23:21 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-05-23 23:23 ` H. Peter Anvin
[not found] ` <4DDAEC68.30803@zytor.com>
2011-05-23 23:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-05-24 2:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-24 7:55 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2011-05-24 12:15 ` Jan Engelhardt
2011-05-24 12:30 ` Jacek Luczak
2011-05-24 13:02 ` Jan Engelhardt
2011-05-24 13:18 ` Jacek Luczak
2011-05-24 14:43 ` Alan Cox
2011-05-24 15:07 ` jonsmirl
2011-05-24 17:36 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-05-24 17:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-05-24 18:48 ` eschvoca
2011-05-24 21:05 ` Jan Engelhardt
2011-05-25 9:12 ` Emil Langrock
2011-05-26 16:13 ` Sérgio Basto
2011-05-27 9:20 ` Lukasz
2011-05-24 15:46 ` Ralf Baechle
2011-05-24 17:29 ` Jan Engelhardt
2011-05-25 1:13 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-05-24 14:41 ` Alan Cox
2011-05-24 14:48 ` Ralf Baechle
2011-05-23 23:53 ` Phil Turmel
2011-05-24 2:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-24 18:06 ` Lisa Milne
2011-05-24 20:59 ` Zimny Lech
2011-05-25 15:03 ` Martin Nybo Andersen
2011-05-24 18:34 ` Matthias Schniedermeyer
2011-05-24 18:55 ` david
2011-05-24 21:25 ` Andy Lutomirski
2011-05-25 12:52 ` Jiri Kosina
2011-05-24 23:00 ` Hans-Peter Jansen
2011-05-23 19:22 ` Greg KH
2011-05-23 20:04 ` James Bottomley
2011-05-23 19:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-05-23 20:21 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-05-23 21:02 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-05-24 19:06 ` Emil Langrock
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201105240955.43229.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).