linux-kernel - Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.1.10.0807192350020.21244@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date:	Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:56:41 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
To:	david@...g.hm
cc:	Craig Milo Rogers <rogers@....EDU>,
	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Stoyan Gaydarov <stoyboyker@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	gorcunov@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?


On Saturday 2008-07-19 22:56, david@...g.hm wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008, Craig Milo Rogers wrote:
>> On 08.07.19, Rene Herman wrote:
>>
>>> Really, find me a single Linux developer who wouldn't try just a
>>> little bit harder for a big 3.0 release. This is still a
>>> community, not yet a boring office schedule...
>>
>> 	I'm afraid that the allure of 3.0 would mean that everyone
>> would want to get their shiny new subsystem/scheduler
>> rewrite/bootstrap file format change/whatever incorporated into it

Which is why it should not be announced early, but happen
spontaenously at Linus's discretion, right after the last -rc.

>> it, resulting in a protracted integration period and an unstable
>> system. According to this line of thought, Linus should simply
>> announce version 3.0 with no forewarning...
>
> not to mention that people would avoid it becouse it would be a .0
> release and therefor perceived as being unstable (and for the
> reasons that Craig lists, they would probably be right)

Maybe we should also start skipping on numbers like 2.x.4, 2.x.13,
and 2.6.66.
"What's in a number?"
Maybe we should only ever release 2.<odd>.0 to show that there is 
nothing bad about being an <odd> or a .0 release.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/