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.
Thread beginning with comment 474353
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
<animal> <integer>
by Verenkeitin on Tue 24th May 2011 17:03 UTC
Verenkeitin
Member since:
2007-07-01

Decimal version numbers are so 90's.

Nowadays everyone is doing version numbers close or above 10 and cool ones have an animal name to further confuse people.

Reply Score: 4

RE: <animal> <integer>
by helf on Tue 24th May 2011 17:50 in reply to "<animal> <integer>"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

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*

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: <animal> <integer>
by Zifre on Tue 24th May 2011 19:32 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

RE: <animal> <integer>
by poundsmack on Tue 24th May 2011 17:50 in reply to "<animal> <integer>"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

Seriously, I mean isn't Chrome at version 13 now or something? and didn't it get there in months? It's like dog years of something...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: <animal> <integer>
by Lennie on Tue 24th May 2011 20:46 in reply to "RE: <animal> <integer>"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

The stable version is a 11, 10 came out just before Firefox 4. Mozilla today pushed out the first Beta of Firefox 5 already. They intend to release Firefox 5 about 3 monts after Firefox 4.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: <animal> <integer>
by Thomas2005 on Tue 24th May 2011 21:30 in reply to "<animal> <integer>"
Thomas2005 Member since:
2005-11-07

Decimal version numbers are so 90's.

Nowadays everyone is doing version numbers close or above 10 and cool ones have an animal name to further confuse people.

To make things easy, Linus should use a year.month.update scheme so he doesn't have to worry about when to bump the major/minor versions. As long as he doesn't release two kernels in the same month then this will work.

Reply Parent Score: 1