Linked by Kroc Camen on Mon 30th May 2011 06:37 UTC
Linux Well this makes a change. Linus Torvalds has announced that the next version of the Linux Kernel release is to be '3.0'. "I decided to just bite the bullet, and call the next version 3.0. It will get released close enough to the 20-year mark, which is excuse enough for me, although honestly, the real reason is just that I can no longer comfortably count as high as 40."
Thread beginning with comment 475070
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Kinda lame
by eric_niebler on Mon 30th May 2011 10:20 UTC
eric_niebler
Member since:
2005-06-29

Sure, Linus can do whatever he feels, but to me a major version number represents massive breaking API changes. <shrug>

Reply Score: 1

RE: Kinda lame
by BiPolar on Mon 30th May 2011 11:22 in reply to "Kinda lame"
BiPolar Member since:
2007-07-06

That's the problem I have with Semantic Versioning. If a product only adds feature, and fixes bugs, in an API compatible way all the time... the said product is supposed to be at 1.x.x for ever? Say... 1.1024.42?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Kinda lame
by modmans2ndcoming on Mon 30th May 2011 16:41 in reply to "RE: Kinda lame"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

perhaps now he did it so he can start the version numbering to approach Pi... like TeX.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Kinda lame
by Kebabbert on Mon 30th May 2011 14:22 in reply to "Kinda lame"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Sure, Linus can do whatever he feels, but to me a major version number represents massive breaking API changes. <shrug>

What do you mean with massive breaking API changes? Care to elaborate?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Kinda lame
by Neolander on Mon 30th May 2011 14:54 in reply to "RE: Kinda lame"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Breaking the binary system call interface, in the case of Linux. Like, I don't know, giving a new parameter to malloc that is mandatory and has no default value. Or switching the integer type used to store PIDs from 32-bit to 64-bit, it that's not done already.

Edited 2011-05-30 14:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Kinda lame
by silix on Mon 30th May 2011 15:02 in reply to "Kinda lame"
silix Member since:
2006-03-01

Sure, Linus can do whatever he feels, but to me a major version number represents massive breaking API changes. <shrug>
or generally speaking some massive breakthrough such as an architecture overhaul, a whole host of new features or a complete ui rethinking in the case of an application)
ABI changes needn't happen... remember that early versions of NT were based on a (Mach- like) microkernel, but even migrating whole subsystems from userspace services into the kernel executive, didn't result in a mass breake of userspace applications - API/ABI breakage involved platform libraries in charge of direct interfacing with the migrated (reimplemented) system services - but applications linked to them, could continue working unchanged (as long as those libraries were accordingly reimplemented)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Kinda lame
by Toad on Mon 30th May 2011 15:21 in reply to "Kinda lame"
Toad Member since:
2005-11-27

Sure, Linus can do whatever he feels, but to me a major version number represents massive breaking API changes. <shrug>


Agree, I think linux should keep the old numbers until braking API and/or really large underlying changes.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Kinda lame
by Soulbender on Mon 30th May 2011 18:23 in reply to "Kinda lame"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

To you perhaps, but not to everyone subscribes to that view. Some prefer not to give an particular meaning to "major" and "minor" version numbers other than, well, it's a new version.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Kinda lame
by JLF65 on Mon 30th May 2011 20:37 in reply to "RE: Kinda lame"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

I've always preferred to bump the major version for ANY change in features, no matter the size or scope, and the minor version if only bug-fixes were done. That's perhaps the most common form of version number handling I've seen among the programmers I associate with. But to each their own... I just find it silly that a "mature" product with more than a decade of work can still be at version 0.xxx. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Kinda lame
by theTSF on Tue 31st May 2011 19:28 in reply to "Kinda lame"
theTSF Member since:
2005-09-27

Major version releases for products like Linux Kernel is just a silly notion. Going from 2.8 to 3.0 seems just as logical then any.

Reply Parent Score: 2