Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?

From: Rene Herman
Date: Wed Jul 16 2008 - 00:20:49 EST

On 15-07-08 20:04, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

Clearly, the 2. prefix has long outlived its usefulness as far as Linux is concerned, and probably the 6 as well.

Been calling the -stable branches v20, v21, v22, ... here.

I do believe the numbering scheme should at least ostensibly still be feature driven, not be a fully robotic date thing. With the latter, you definitely miss out on press-opportunities and that's not even meant cynical. There just is a bit of industry around Linux and the promotion opportunities of (say) "Linux 3" are really lots, lots bigger than anything boringly date based.

That even holds for things like books -- I just bet that a "all new, covers Linux 3!" blurp on the cover sells lots more copies than a "all new, covers the march 21st 2009 version of Linux!" one.

But yes, the current monotic increase is definitely getting a bit boring as well. The kernel as of 2.6.26 is quite different from the kernel that was known as 2.6.0 so just be creative I'd say and set a 2.8 goal. Next version can be 2.9 (should be clear enough by then) and then watch world domination happen with the big 3.0 release.

Linux 2010.5? Boooooooooring....


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at