On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:Well, we just haven't had anything big enough to merit an increase in the minor number lately. I nominate the removal of the BKL as one such feature, based on the sheer work required and how many modules you'll need to touch to do so. In fact, it would be the natural conclusion to a 2.x series that highlighted SMP as its primary new feature. But it's hard now to predict future milestones, or when an overall paradigm shift might happen. In those cases you'll want to give Linux a bright new announcement to the world, instead of it being "just another standard year of kernel development". Remember, you used to have versions called 1.3.100 before -- and they seemed perfectly normal back then. I personally like how we're still on 2.y.z numbers compared to all of the other OSes (Solaris 11, HP-UX 11)...it makes Linux still feel young, showing how much better it can get ;-) So I vote for releasing by "features" still, and keep the current numbering scheme. Who knows when the next big idea will pop up that's worthy of 3.0.0. -Byron --
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Hiten Pandya | Re: up? (emacs docbook xml ide) |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Daniel Eischen | Re: error with thread |
