Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change
From: Harald Arnesen
Date: Thu Oct 16 2008 - 15:14:58 EST
Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 04:26:19PM +0200, markus reichelt wrote:
>> Why not just keep it? It has worked so far, and from a strictly
>> end-user point of view I cannot see any advantages at all with a new
>> scheme. The ideas mentioned so far don't cut it either.
> I'd cast a vote for keeping it as well. "2.6" is actually a great
> marker so that people know that it's highly likely the version number
> is for the Linux kernel. Contrast "I'm running 2.6.27" versus "I'm
> running 27" (huh, what does that mean?) or "I'm running the 27 kernel"
> or "I'm running Linux kernel version 27" or worse yet "I'm running
> 2008-03". Something like "2.6.27" is just easier to say, and less
> prone to misunderstanding/confusion.
> Let's just leave things the way they are.
My suggestion: When 2.6.28 is released, rename it to 2.8 (or 2.8.0).
The next one will be 2.9, then 2.10 and so on. Today's 2.6.x.y will be
It should minimise breakage of userspace programs.
Or wait til 2.6.30, and rename that to 3.0.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/