Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Tue 24th May 2011 14:38 UTC, submitted by Debjit
Linux "So far. we have seen 39 development cycles of Linux 2.6 and the 40th is about to start. However, Linux 2.6.39 might be the end of the Linux 2.6 series. In an email, Linus Torvalds wrote that the numbers are becoming too big and he might [be] thinking of giving the next release a version number of 2.8.0. [...] In the ensuing discussion, Torvalds wrote that a version number of 3.0 is also a strong possibility", as a natural way to introduce a new numbering scheme where odd numbers are also used for stable releases and feature releases increment the second digit.
Permalink for comment 474379
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: <animal> <integer>
by Zifre on Tue 24th May 2011 19:32 UTC in reply to "RE: <animal> <integer>"
Zifre
Member since:
2009-10-04

They also change the primary number with every release to make it look like you are doing more work than you are *cough*chrome*cough*

I'm so tired of people complaining about version numbers.

To me, if project A is at version X, and they release a new version Y, as long as X < Y, I'm happy.

The only exception would be deceptively changing a scheme that was already in use, e.g. incrementing something that is supposed to be a major version number when it doesn't make sense.

But if someone wants to number the versions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, .... 143, I really don't see what's the problem with that.

Reply Parent Score: 2