Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Linux: Kernel

(Short?) merge window reminder

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All Linux kernel RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


torvalds at linux-foundation

May 23, 2011, 12:13 PM

Post #1 of 57 (3553 views)
Permalink
(Short?) merge window reminder

So I've been busily merging stuff, and just wanted to send out a quick
reminder that I warned people in the 39 announcement that this might
be a slightly shorter merge window than usual, so that I can avoid
having to make the -rc1 release from Japan using my slow laptop (doing
"allyesconfig" builds on that thing really isn't in the cards, and I
like to do those to verify things - even if we've already had a few
cases where arch include differences made it less than effective in
finding problems).

And judging by the merge window so far, that early close (probably
Sunday - I'll be on airplanes next Monday) looks rather likely. I
already seem to have a fairly sizable portion of linux-next in my
tree, and there haven't been any huge upsets.

So anybody who was planning a last-minute "please pull" - this is a
heads-up. Don't do it, you might miss the window entirely.

Did I miss any major development mailing lists with stuff pending?

Linus

PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting
too big. I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that
this PS is going to result in more discussion than the rest, but when
the voices tell me to do things, I listen.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


mingo at elte

May 23, 2011, 12:20 PM

Post #2 of 57 (3489 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds [at] linux-foundation> wrote:

> PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting too big.
> I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that this PS is going
> to result in more discussion than the rest, but when the voices tell me to do
> things, I listen.

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

Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


gregkh at suse

May 23, 2011, 12:22 PM

Post #3 of 57 (3482 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:13:29PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting
> too big. I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that
> this PS is going to result in more discussion than the rest, but when
> the voices tell me to do things, I listen.

If you do this, I will buy you a bottle of whatever whiskey you want
that I can get my hands on in Tokyo next week.

{crosses fingers}

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


tglx at linutronix

May 23, 2011, 12:25 PM

Post #4 of 57 (3478 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

On Mon, 23 May 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting
> too big. I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that
> this PS is going to result in more discussion than the rest, but when
> the voices tell me to do things, I listen.

So the voices tell you to avoid .42 ?

Thanks,

tglx

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


James.Bottomley at HansenPartnership

May 23, 2011, 1:04 PM

Post #5 of 57 (3475 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 12:22 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:13:29PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting
> > too big. I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that
> > this PS is going to result in more discussion than the rest, but when
> > the voices tell me to do things, I listen.
>
> If you do this, I will buy you a bottle of whatever whiskey you want
> that I can get my hands on in Tokyo next week.

I can recommend Hanyu Ace of Spades ... I can even arrange to be on
hand just to make sure it's as good as it should be ...

James


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


rdunlap at xenotime

May 23, 2011, 1:21 PM

Post #6 of 57 (3479 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

On Mon, 23 May 2011 21:25:25 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> On Mon, 23 May 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting
> > too big. I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that
> > this PS is going to result in more discussion than the rest, but when
> > the voices tell me to do things, I listen.
>
> So the voices tell you to avoid .42 ?

They tell him to avoid the question to which 42 is the answer.

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


torvalds at linux-foundation

May 23, 2011, 1:33 PM

Post #7 of 57 (3496 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo [at] elte> wrote:
>
> 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.

But we'll see.

Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


alexey.zaytsev at gmail

May 23, 2011, 1:52 PM

Post #8 of 57 (3488 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 00:33, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds [at] linux-foundation> wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo [at] elte> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> But we'll see.

Maybe, 2011.x, or 11.x, x increasing for every merge window started this year?
This would better reflect the steady nature of the releases, but would
certainly break a lot of scripts. ;)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


rostedt at goodmis

May 23, 2011, 2:02 PM

Post #9 of 57 (3475 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:21:26PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> They tell him to avoid the question to which 42 is the answer.

What 2.6 Linux kernel version was the last before 3.0?

-- Steve

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


oliver.pntr at gmail

May 23, 2011, 2:59 PM

Post #10 of 57 (3471 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

On 5/23/11, Linus Torvalds <torvalds [at] linux-foundation> wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo [at] elte> wrote:
>>
>> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
>> cutting 3.0.0! :-)

I think, the best time for this, after reorganize the ARM arch folder / tree.

>
> 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.
>
> But we'll see.
>
> Linus
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


gregkh at suse

May 23, 2011, 3:21 PM

Post #11 of 57 (3470 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo [at] elte> wrote:
> >
> > 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.

I like that, it would make things much easier for me to keep track of
stuff.

> 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.

That sounds reasonable as well.

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


jonsmirl at gmail

May 23, 2011, 4:10 PM

Post #12 of 57 (3472 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds [at] linux-foundation> wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo [at] elte> wrote:
>>
>> 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.

Could we set a goal of having 3.0 be the first release with a totally
cleaned up ARM arch? That would give everyone a good target to work
towards.

--
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl [at] gmail
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


tytso at mit

May 23, 2011, 4:17 PM

Post #13 of 57 (3474 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo [at] elte> wrote:
> >
> > 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.

If we change from 2.6.X to 3.X, then if we don't change anything else,
then successive stable release will cause the LINUX_VERSION_CODE to be
incremented. This isn't necessary bad, but it would be a different
from what we have now.

- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


rdunlap at xenotime

May 23, 2011, 4:21 PM

Post #14 of 57 (3459 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

On Mon, 23 May 2011 19:17:21 -0400 Ted Ts'o wrote:

> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo [at] elte> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> If we change from 2.6.X to 3.X, then if we don't change anything else,
> then successive stable release will cause the LINUX_VERSION_CODE to be
> incremented. This isn't necessary bad, but it would be a different
> from what we have now.


It's just another little thing to break several scripts...


---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


hpa at zytor

May 23, 2011, 4:23 PM

Post #15 of 57 (3470 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

On 05/23/2011 04:17 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo [at] elte> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> If we change from 2.6.X to 3.X, then if we don't change anything else,
> then successive stable release will cause the LINUX_VERSION_CODE to be
> incremented. This isn't necessary bad, but it would be a different
> from what we have now.
>

That sounds like a good thing.

-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


torvalds at linux-foundation

May 23, 2011, 4:33 PM

Post #16 of 57 (3541 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

Another advantage of switching numbering models (ie 3.0 instead of
2.8.x) would be that it would also make the "odd numbers are also
numbers" transition much more natural.

Because of our historical even/odd model, I wouldn't do a 2.7.x -
there's just too much history of 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 being development
trees. But if I do 3.0, then I'd be chucking that whole thing out the
window, and the next release would be 3.1, 3.2, etc..

And then in another few years (probably before getting close to 3.40,
so I'm not going to make a big deal of 3 = "third decade"), I'd just
do 4.0 etc.

Because all our releases are supposed to be stable releases these
days, and if we get rid of one level of numbering, I feel perfectly
fine with getting rid of the even/odd history too.

Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


matthew at wil

May 23, 2011, 4:40 PM

Post #17 of 57 (3465 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 03:21:21PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo [at] elte> wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> I like that, it would make things much easier for me to keep track of
> stuff.

As long as 3.14 turns into a long-term support kernel and gets up to 159 ...

In all serious, I'm very supportive of this move. I'm heartily sick
of people claiming "we have version 2.6 support" when they really mean
they haven't updated since version 2.6.9. Yeah, congratulations, you're
seven years out of date.

--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


philip at turmel

May 23, 2011, 4:53 PM

Post #18 of 57 (3461 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

Hi Linus,

On 05/23/2011 04:33 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo [at] elte> wrote:
>>
>> 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.

A few months ago, I briefly considered suggesting that the demise of the BKL
would be a suitable milestone for the numbering shakeup.

But I am a mere mortal lurker, and I remember past flame-fests this topic
spawned. So I chickened out.

As a small-scale linux evangelist, I would sure like to skip the explanation
of the version numbers.

Phil
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


mingo at elte

May 23, 2011, 7:01 PM

Post #19 of 57 (3476 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds [at] linux-foundation> wrote:

> Another advantage of switching numbering models (ie 3.0 instead of
> 2.8.x) would be that it would also make the "odd numbers are also
> numbers" transition much more natural.

Yeah, it sounds really good to get rid of the (meanwhile) meaningless
"2.6." prefix from our version code and iterate it in a more
meaningful way.

I suspect the stable team and distros will enjoy the more meaningful
third digit as well: it will raise the perceived importance of
stabilization and packaging work.

Btw., we should probably remove the fourth (patch) level, otherwise
distros might feel tempted to fill it in with their own patch-stack
version number, which would result in confusing "3.3.1.5" meaning
different things on different distros - while 3.3.1-5.rpm style of
distro kernel package naming denotes the distro patch level more
clearly.

I don't think the odd/even history will linger too long: in practice
we'll iterate through 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 rather quickly, in the first
year, so any residual notion of stable/unstable will be gone within a
few iterations.

> Because of our historical even/odd model, I wouldn't do a 2.7.x -
> there's just too much history of 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 being development
> trees. But if I do 3.0, then I'd be chucking that whole thing out the
> window, and the next release would be 3.1, 3.2, etc..
>
> And then in another few years (probably before getting close to 3.40,
> so I'm not going to make a big deal of 3 = "third decade"), I'd just
> do 4.0 etc.

Perhaps we could do 4.0 once the last bit of -rt hits upstream? /me ducks

> Because all our releases are supposed to be stable releases these
> days, and if we get rid of one level of numbering, I feel perfectly
> fine with getting rid of the even/odd history too.

They are very stable releases as far as i'm concerned - i can pretty
confidently run and use -rc2 and better kernels on my boxes these days
and could do so for the past few years.

Thanks,

Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


mingo at elte

May 23, 2011, 7:11 PM

Post #20 of 57 (3469 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds [at] linux-foundation> wrote:

> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo [at] elte> wrote:
> >
> > 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.

Also, in all fairness, we should probably display a certain amount of humility:
while Linux has certainly reached milestones such as world domination (as far
as large and small computers are concerned), so calling it 3.0 is a fair deal,
we probably have to wait for version 42.0 before we can consider the Linux
kernel to be the ultimate answer to life, universe and everything.

Thanks,

Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


arnd at arndb

May 24, 2011, 12:55 AM

Post #21 of 57 (3468 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

On Tuesday 24 May 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Another advantage of switching numbering models (ie 3.0 instead of
> 2.8.x) would be that it would also make the "odd numbers are also
> numbers" transition much more natural.
>
> Because of our historical even/odd model, I wouldn't do a 2.7.x -
> there's just too much history of 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 being development
> trees. But if I do 3.0, then I'd be chucking that whole thing out the
> window, and the next release would be 3.1, 3.2, etc..

I like that. While I don't really care if you call it 2.7, 2.8 or 3.0
(or 4.0 even, if you want to keep continuity following .38 and .39),
the current 2.5/2.6 numbering cycle is almost 10 years old and has
obviously lost all significance.

The only reason I can see that would make it worthwhile waiting for
is if the enterprise and embedded people were to decide on a common
longterm kernel and call that e.g. 2.7.x or 2.8.x while you continue with
2.9.x or 3.0.x or 3.x. My impression is however that the next longterm
release is still one or two years away, so probably not worth waiting
for and hard to estimate in advance.

> Because all our releases are supposed to be stable releases these
> days, and if we get rid of one level of numbering, I feel perfectly
> fine with getting rid of the even/odd history too.

We still have stable and unstable releases, except that you call the
unstable ones -rcX and they are all nice and short, unlike the infamous
2.1.xxx series ;-)

IMHO simply changing the names from 2.6.40-rcX to 2.7.X and from
2.6.40.X to 2.6.8.X etc would be the most straightforward change
if you want to save the 3.0 release for a special moment.

Enough bike shedding from my side, please just make a decision.

Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


jengelh at medozas

May 24, 2011, 5:15 AM

Post #22 of 57 (3460 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

On Tuesday 2011-05-24 01:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:

>Another advantage of switching numbering models (ie 3.0 instead of
>2.8.x) would be that it would also make the "odd numbers are also
>numbers" transition much more natural.
>
>Because of our historical even/odd model, I wouldn't do a 2.7.x -
>there's just too much history of 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 being development
>trees.

.oO(Though once 2.{7 or more, odd} trickle into the distros, it would
become pretty much apparent that they are not devel.)

>And then in another few years (probably before getting close to 3.40,
>so I'm not going to make a big deal of 3 = "third decade"), I'd just
>do 4.0 etc.

While 2.6 has certainly worn out, already thinking of a 4.0 is highly
reminiscient of the version number arms race Firefox and ChromeBrowser
are doing currently.

>Because all our releases are supposed to be stable releases these
>days, and if we get rid of one level of numbering, I feel perfectly
>fine with getting rid of the even/odd history too.

If I remember past-time discussions right, ELF was the contributing
factor to bump the major number to 2.0 back then; ever since 2.0, no
similarly breakthrough-ing event has occurred.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


difrost.kernel at gmail

May 24, 2011, 5:30 AM

Post #23 of 57 (3455 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

2011/5/24 Jan Engelhardt <jengelh [at] medozas>:
> On Tuesday 2011-05-24 01:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>>Another advantage of switching numbering models (ie 3.0 instead of
>>2.8.x) would be that it would also make the "odd numbers are also
>>numbers" transition much more natural.
>>
>>Because of our historical even/odd model, I wouldn't do a 2.7.x -
>>there's just too much history of 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 being development
>>trees.
>
> .oO(Though once 2.{7 or more, odd} trickle into the distros, it would
> become pretty much apparent that they are not devel.)
>
>>And then in another few years (probably before getting close to 3.40,
>>so I'm not going to make a big deal of 3 = "third decade"), I'd just
>>do 4.0 etc.
>
> While 2.6 has certainly worn out, already thinking of a 4.0 is highly
> reminiscient of the version number arms race Firefox and ChromeBrowser
> are doing currently.
>
>>Because all our releases are supposed to be stable releases these
>>days, and if we get rid of one level of numbering, I feel perfectly
>>fine with getting rid of the even/odd history too.
>
> If I remember past-time discussions right, ELF was the contributing
> factor to bump the major number to 2.0 back then; ever since 2.0, no
> similarly breakthrough-ing event has occurred.

What then about BKL removal? Nice place to celebrate with version jump
and heaving some beers.

-Jacek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


jengelh at medozas

May 24, 2011, 6:02 AM

Post #24 of 57 (3456 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

On Tuesday 2011-05-24 14:30, Jacek Luczak wrote:

>2011/5/24 Jan Engelhardt <jengelh [at] medozas>:
>> On Tuesday 2011-05-24 01:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>>>Another advantage of switching numbering models (ie 3.0 instead of
>>>2.8.x) would be that it would also make the "odd numbers are also
>>>numbers" transition much more natural.
>>>
>>>Because of our historical even/odd model, I wouldn't do a 2.7.x -
>>>there's just too much history of 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 being development
>>>trees.
>>
>> .oO(Though once 2.{7 or more, odd} trickle into the distros, it would
>> become pretty much apparent that they are not devel.)
>>
>>>And then in another few years (probably before getting close to 3.40,
>>>so I'm not going to make a big deal of 3 = "third decade"), I'd just
>>>do 4.0 etc.
>>
>> While 2.6 has certainly worn out, already thinking of a 4.0 is highly
>> reminiscient of the version number arms race Firefox and ChromeBrowser
>> are doing currently.
>>
>>>Because all our releases are supposed to be stable releases these
>>>days, and if we get rid of one level of numbering, I feel perfectly
>>>fine with getting rid of the even/odd history too.
>>
>> If I remember past-time discussions right, ELF was the contributing
>> factor to bump the major number to 2.0 back then; ever since 2.0, no
>> similarly breakthrough-ing event has occurred.
>
>What then about BKL removal? Nice place to celebrate with version jump
>and heaving some beers.

The BKL going away was not a change that would require new
userspace programs.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


difrost.kernel at gmail

May 24, 2011, 6:18 AM

Post #25 of 57 (3452 views)
Permalink
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder [In reply to]

2011/5/24 Jan Engelhardt <jengelh [at] medozas>:
> On Tuesday 2011-05-24 14:30, Jacek Luczak wrote:
>
>>2011/5/24 Jan Engelhardt <jengelh [at] medozas>:
>>> On Tuesday 2011-05-24 01:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>
>>>>Another advantage of switching numbering models (ie 3.0 instead of
>>>>2.8.x) would be that it would also make the "odd numbers are also
>>>>numbers" transition much more natural.
>>>>
>>>>Because of our historical even/odd model, I wouldn't do a 2.7.x -
>>>>there's just too much history of 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 being development
>>>>trees.
>>>
>>> .oO(Though once 2.{7 or more, odd} trickle into the distros, it would
>>> become pretty much apparent that they are not devel.)
>>>
>>>>And then in another few years (probably before getting close to 3.40,
>>>>so I'm not going to make a big deal of 3 = "third decade"), I'd just
>>>>do 4.0 etc.
>>>
>>> While 2.6 has certainly worn out, already thinking of a 4.0 is highly
>>> reminiscient of the version number arms race Firefox and ChromeBrowser
>>> are doing currently.
>>>
>>>>Because all our releases are supposed to be stable releases these
>>>>days, and if we get rid of one level of numbering, I feel perfectly
>>>>fine with getting rid of the even/odd history too.
>>>
>>> If I remember past-time discussions right, ELF was the contributing
>>> factor to bump the major number to 2.0 back then; ever since 2.0, no
>>> similarly breakthrough-ing event has occurred.
>>
>>What then about BKL removal? Nice place to celebrate with version jump
>>and heaving some beers.
>
> The BKL going away was not a change that would require new
> userspace programs.

True but as you I guess - kind off - notice there's no such event that
would launch fireworks and we get features smoothly. By that then we
should celebrate killing old nightmares aka BKL. It's more like - lets
not find the reason but include one just to feel better. At the end
the simplified version convention is the best reason to do this cut
off. I even plan to send a truck full of chickens to Linus if this
will convince him :) Then, while describing new kernel deployment, I
won't need to pronounce the cool sounding - ,,Mika so I've now
installed two(dot)six(dot)thirty-five(dot)forty-one(dash)one
version.''

Cheers,
-Jacek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All Linux kernel RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.