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 474442
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: date based
by Alfman on Wed 25th May 2011 01:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: date based"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

"Yes, because there are people like myself living in the southern hemisphere, where November is summer, not winter. :-)"

Gosh you're right!

"Using years as a version number just seems bad to me. That will make software very quickly dated. Example, running Windows Server 2008 in the year 2011. That makes windows sound very old and outdated."

I honestly don't see how this is a problem?

"I say, stick with major.minor numbers and be done with it."

The arbitrariness doesn't bug you? At least the date gives us an idea of the age.

My car is a 2.36 Toyota Corolla.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: date based
by ggeldenhuys on Wed 25th May 2011 09:58 in reply to "RE[3]: date based"
ggeldenhuys Member since:
2006-11-13

The arbitrariness doesn't bug you? At least the date gives us an idea of the age.

And with the "age" part one might get the idea that MySoftware 2008 running in 2011 is: old, outdated, obsolete etc.. But that could all be false ideas. Maybe the software is just plain rock solid due to 20 years of development history - thus no bugs and no new releases are needed.

Now if they used major.minor version numbers, you don't get that false sense of outdated software.

As for your comparison with cars... well cars age year-on-year. They get used and abused, so knowing the age is more important, hence the seasoning for using a year with the model name. We know it is pretty much fact that a 1995 model car will be pretty unreliable today.

A piece of software released in 1995 is just as reliable then, as it is today. I know of lots of [mainframe] software written in the 80's, and still being used today. Hence the year versioning doesn't work with software.

Bottom line, use what you feel is right. It's just a version number after all. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: date based
by cmchittom on Wed 25th May 2011 12:55 in reply to "RE[4]: date based"
cmchittom Member since:
2011-03-18

We know it is pretty much fact that a 1995 model car will be pretty unreliable today.


I understand your point, but I fully expect to still be driving my 1995 Toyota Tercel in 2020 when it becomes an "antique," legally.

Reply Parent Score: 1