[OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (WAS Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice)

jbradford
2002-10-03T15:40:55Z

> > Tangent question, is it definitely to be named 2.6?
>
> I see no real reason to call it 3.0.
>
> The order-of-magnitude threading improvements might just come closest to
> being a "new thing", but yeah, I still consider it 2.6.x. We don't have
> new architectures or other really fundamental stuff. In many ways the jump
> from 2.2 -> 2.4 was bigger than the 2.4 -> 2.6 thing will be, I suspect.

I think we should stick to incrementing the major number when binary compatibility is broken.

> But hey, it's just a number. I don't feel that strongly either way. I
> think version number inflation (can anybody say "distribution makers"?) is
> a bit silly, and the way the kernel numbering works there is no reason to
> bump the major number for regular releases.

Psycologically and sub-conciously, this kind of thing _does_ make people stand up and take notice.

For example, SNK made the NeoGeo arcade games print things like:

NEO GEO
MAX 330 MEGA
PRO GEAR SPEC

on start up and in attract mode.

As far as I know, the 330 MEGA means absolutely nothing, and pro gear spec is just an arbitrary name for the addressing system used.

John.