Re: I vote for incrimenting the version number to 3.0.0

david parsons (o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s)
31 Dec 1998 13:09:47 -0800

In article <linux.kernel.19981231090227.A4678@visi.net>,
Ben Collins <bmc@visi.net> wrote:
>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.

I can think of one good reason to up the version number to 3.0;
if parts of the interface have been broken (I'm thinking about
pty major numbers here; If other things have changed, it's even
more of a reason) a major number change at least gives a hint
that "Hey! You'll have to remake the *ENTIRE* world if you want
to upgrade to this system."

>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.

Actually it didn't -- I was running elf-based binaries with 1.2.13
and for several years the extent of the changes I did for a 2.0.x
kernel was just that -- I booted with a 2.0.x kernel instead of
1.2.13 and ignored the stupid flock messages. Internally, 2.0.x
may have been massively redone, but the published interfaces stayed
close enough to 1.2.13 so that it was an incremental upgrade.

____
david parsons \bi/ Shoot, I can't even compile 2.2 unless I tweak my
\/ system to fit it.

-
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/