Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Chris Wedgwood
2005-03-03T04:17:41Z

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:21:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> - 2.6.<even>: even at all levels, aim for having had minimally intrusive
> patches leading up to it (timeframe: a week or two)
>
> with the odd numbers going like:
>
> - 2.6.<odd>: still a stable kernel, but accept bigger changes leading up
> to it (timeframe: a month or two).
> - 2.<odd>.x: aim for big changes that may destabilize the kernel for
> several releases (timeframe: a year or two)

[...]

Why not change the "2.6 prefix" to 2.8, 3.0 (or whatever) if/when you
do go to a new naming scheme --- simply to make a clean break between
the new and the old. Plus it will give the suckdork crowd[1] bigger
numbers to drivel on about.

That said it would be a large numerical leap without and real feature
changes so perhaps that will further add to confusion?

Sigh.

[1] Well, and the CGL and similar people. "New CGL with improved
version numbers and fewer calories!"