Re: I vote for incrimenting the version number to 3.0.0

Ben Collins (bmc@visi.net)
Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:02:27 -0500


On Wed, Dec 30, 1998 at 07:56:45PM -0500, 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.

Actually way back when versions were generally standard across the
the different software programs a .x increase was considered major
feature enhancement, while .0.x was considered interim bug fix
releases. Full version increases were generally left for what most
considered _full_ rewrites and major overhauls.

The increase from kernel 1 to 2 saw, iirc, ext2, elf, and a slew of over
changes. It generally changed the way we ran Linux. 2.2 is a great
achievment but we still run it the same as before, just faster, with
more cpu's, more supported hardware...you know, features :)

--
-----    -- - -------- --------- ----  -------  -----  - - ---   --------
Ben Collins <b.m.collins@larc.nasa.gov>                  Debian GNU/Linux
UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc.                 bcollins@debian.org
------ -- ----- - - -------   ------- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation

- 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/