From: Jacek Luczak <difrost.kernel@gmail.com>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"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.medozas.de
Subject: Re: (Short?) merge window reminder
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:18:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BANLkTinNK+9XijCN0YGXyvLQ8_npPTG2cQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.01.1105241500410.23085@frira.zrqbmnf.qr>
2011/5/24 Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de>:
> On Tuesday 2011-05-24 14:30, Jacek Luczak wrote:
>
>>2011/5/24 Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de>:
>>> On Tuesday 2011-05-24 01:33, 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.
>>>
>>> .oO(Though once 2.{7 or more, odd} trickle into the distros, it would
>>> become pretty much apparent that they are not devel.)
>>>
>>>>And then in another few years (probably before getting close to 3.40,
>>>>so I'm not going to make a big deal of 3 = "third decade"), I'd just
>>>>do 4.0 etc.
>>>
>>> While 2.6 has certainly worn out, already thinking of a 4.0 is highly
>>> reminiscient of the version number arms race Firefox and ChromeBrowser
>>> are doing currently.
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>> If I remember past-time discussions right, ELF was the contributing
>>> factor to bump the major number to 2.0 back then; ever since 2.0, no
>>> similarly breakthrough-ing event has occurred.
>>
>>What then about BKL removal? Nice place to celebrate with version jump
>>and heaving some beers.
>
> The BKL going away was not a change that would require new
> userspace programs.
True but as you I guess - kind off - notice there's no such event that
would launch fireworks and we get features smoothly. By that then we
should celebrate killing old nightmares aka BKL. It's more like - lets
not find the reason but include one just to feel better. At the end
the simplified version convention is the best reason to do this cut
off. I even plan to send a truck full of chickens to Linus if this
will convince him :) Then, while describing new kernel deployment, I
won't need to pronounce the cool sounding - ,,Mika so I've now
installed two(dot)six(dot)thirty-five(dot)forty-one(dash)one
version.''
Cheers,
-Jacek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-24 13:18 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
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 [this message]
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=BANLkTinNK+9XijCN0YGXyvLQ8_npPTG2cQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=difrost.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc="linux-mm <linux-mm"@kvack.medozas.de \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jengelh@medozas.de \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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).