On 05/23/2011 04:33 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar[off-list ref]  wrote:

quoted

I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
cutting 3.0.0! :-)

So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
not "3.0.0" - the stable team would get the third digit rather than
the fourth one.

But no, it wouldn't be for 42. Despite THHGTTG, I think "40" is a
fairly nice round number.

There's also the timing issue - since we no longer do version numbers
based on features, but based on time, just saying "we're about to
start the third decade" works as well as any other excuse.

I don't think year-based versions (like 2011.0 for the first 2011 
release, or maybe 2011.5 for May 2011) are pretty, but I'll make an 
argument for them anyway: it makes it easier to figure out when hardware 
ought to be supported.

So if I buy a 2014-model laptop and the coffee-making button doesn't 
work, and my favorite distro is running the 2013 kernel, then I know I 
shouldn't expect to it to work.  (Graphics drivers are probably a more 
realistic example.)

Also, when someone in my lab installs <insert ancient enterprise distro 
here> on a box that's running software I wrote that needs to support 
modern high-speed peripherals, then I can say "What?  You seriously 
expect this stuff to work on Linux 2007?  Let's install a slightly less 
stable distro from at least 2010."  This sounds a lot less nerdy than 
"What?  You seriously expect this stuff to work on Linux 2.6.27?  Let's 
install a slightly less stable distro that uses at least 2.6.36."


--Andy

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>