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 475085
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
makkus
Member since:
2006-01-11

If the number doesn't mean anything any more, I would make it something that makes it obvious how old the kernel is, like,

kernel 2011.05.03-02

released on 03 may 2011, patch version 2

Why keep and change arbitrary number, when you can make a number which actually means something?

Edited 2011-05-30 13:14 UTC

Reply Score: 6

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Why keep and change arbitrary number, when you can make a number which actually means something?


Too much common sense for one post there, friend.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

Which number should be replaced with a date? The major, the minor, the patch number or the additional backport version number?

So one date for 2.x.x, one for 2.6.x, one date for 2.6.40, and one date for 2.6.40.x patches?

I think numbers over 40 are annoying is as good a reason as any, just like, date? what date? multiple dates are annoying..

The problem is Linux version branches now. When 2.6.32 is released, it is finished from Linus point-of-view but it is still maintained has bug-fixes backported etc. Hopefully this will become 3.x is released by linus and 3.x.x are released by point-release maintainers with bug-fixes only.

Edited 2011-05-30 13:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

If the number doesn't mean anything any more, I would make it something that makes it obvious how old the kernel is, like,

kernel 2011.05.03-02

released on 03 may 2011, patch version 2

Why keep and change arbitrary number, when you can make a number which actually means something?


The problem is that atleast in Linux kernel the version number DOES indeed mean something. In x.y.z versioning if z changes it just tells you that it's a bugfix and any modules compiled against the previous version should work just fine on newer versions too. If y changes then it means that release has some new functionality, drivers and/or features that are remarkable enough to warrant version bump. It might also break something, but usually shouldn't. If x changes then it is a major devision from previous versions and most likely breaks any and all out-of-kernel-sources modules.

This is important for example for compatibility reasons. With date-based versioning you'd lose all that, you couldn't for example deduct whether your driver will work on current release if the driver was made 5 releases back.

So there IS indeed a meaning to those version numbers. Why Linus bumped to 3.0.0 then? Well, he apparently felt that the kernel has deviated so much from 2.x.x line, even with incremental changes, that it warrants a version bump.

Reply Parent Score: 7

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Yeah sure, version the kernel after some guy who happens to be the excuse for some stupid religion. That would be something.

And Linus said it was time based. Third decade of kernel development.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Thomas2005 Member since:
2005-11-07

If the number doesn't mean anything any more, I would make it something that makes it obvious how old the kernel is, like,

kernel 2011.05.03-02

released on 03 may 2011, patch version 2

Why keep and change arbitrary number, when you can make a number which actually means something?

This is what I am thinking, but I would use a two-digit year, no leading '0', and no day of the month so the version above would be 11.5.2. I do not follow Linux kernel releases so I do not know if Linus has released more than one kernel in the same month, but if he has/will then the day would be included like so, 11.5.3.2.

Reply Parent Score: 2

makkus Member since:
2006-01-11

You did put more thought in it then I did and I like it,

two digit year.two digit month.two digit patch version, like 11.5.2 is indeed far better the mine and is more in line with current version number.

Reply Parent Score: 1

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Dates are (1) meaningless, (2) arbitrary and, worst of all, (3) non-uniform.

Until we can have all months with numbers of days divisible by something sensible, like 10 or 2, and until we can have years with a number of days divisible by something sensible, like 10 or 2, and until we can have a number of months divisible by something sensible, like 10 or 2, then I say "No thanks!" to date-based versioning.

Everything has a release date anyway. Why throw out the version number?[i][/i]

Reply Parent Score: 3