Re: I vote for incrimenting the version number to 3.0.0, Re:

Rik van Riel (riel@humbolt.geo.uu.nl)
Thu, 31 Dec 1998 13:02:30 +0100 (CET)


On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Anthony Barbachan wrote:

> Have it more sellable is just a nice side effect, my main argument
> is that the amount of changes and additions to the kernel
> justifies its version being incrimented to 3.0.0. A .2 upgrade
> usually denotes a minor upgrade.

Linux 2.2 _is_ just an incremental upgrade from 2.0.

There are no spectacular new features in 2.2 that weren't in
2.0. There are a bunch of new drivers and 2.0 features are
enhanced (sometimes in rather extreme ways:).

If you take a look at the things that are scheduled for 2.3,
then you'll see what is needed for a new major version number.

I propose we wait with 3.0 until LVM, FS Journalling and other
advanced features (there's a load of them lining up for 2.3)
have been integrated...

cheers,

Rik -- If a Microsoft product fails, who do you sue?
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Linux memory management tour guide. riel@humbolt.geo.uu.nl |
| Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/~riel |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

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