----- Forwarded message from Linus Torvalds <> -----

From: Linus Torvalds <>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
To: Stoyan Gaydarov <>
cc: linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	gorcunov at gmail.com, akpm at linux-foundation.org, mingo at elte.hu
Subject: Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?



On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Stoyan Gaydarov wrote:
> >
> > For example, I don't see any individual feature that would merit a jump
> > from 2.x to 3.x or even from 2.6.x to 2.8.x. So maybe those version jumps
> > should be done by a time-based model too - matching how we actually do
> > releases anyway.
>
> Does it have to be even numbers only?

No. But the even/odd thing is still so fresh in peoples memory (despite us 
not having used it for years), and I think some projects aped us on it, so 
if I didn't change the numbering setup, but just wanted to reset the minor 
number, I'd probably jump from 2.6 to 2.8 just for historical reasons.

But I could also see the second number as being the "year", and 2008 would 
get 2.8, and then next year I'd make the first release of 2009 be 2.9.1 
(and probably avoid the ".0" just because it again has the connotations of 
a "big new untested release", which is not true in a date-based numbering 
scheme). And then 2010 would be 3.0.1 etc..

Anyway, I have to say that I personally don't have any hugely strong 
opinions on the numbering. I suspect others do, though, and I'm almost 
certain that this is an absolutely _perfect_ "bikeshed-painting" subject 
where thousands of people will be very passionate and send me their 
opinions on why _their_ particular shed color is so much better.

The only thing I do know is that I agree that "big meaningless numbers" 
are bad. "26" is already pretty big. As you point out, the 2.4.x series 
has much bigger numbers yet.

And yes, something like "2008" is obviously numerically bigger, but has a 
direct meaning and as such is possibly better than something arbitrary and 
non-descriptive like "26".

Let the bike-shed-painting begin.

(I had planned on taking this up at the kernel summit, where the shed 
painting is at least limited to a much smaller audience, but since you 
asked..)

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

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Hi, I'm a .signature virus, please copy/paste me to help me spread
all over the world.

在 Friday 18 July 2008 17:55:14，WANG Cong 写道：
> ----- Forwarded message from Linus Torvalds <> -----
> 
> From: Linus Torvalds <>
> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
> To: Stoyan Gaydarov <>
> cc: linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
> 	gorcunov at gmail.com, akpm at linux-foundation.org, mingo at elte.hu
> Subject: Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Stoyan Gaydarov wrote:
> > >
> > > For example, I don't see any individual feature that would merit a jump
> > > from 2.x to 3.x or even from 2.6.x to 2.8.x. So maybe those version jumps
> > > should be done by a time-based model too - matching how we actually do
> > > releases anyway.
> >
> > Does it have to be even numbers only?
> 
> No. But the even/odd thing is still so fresh in peoples memory (despite us 
> not having used it for years), and I think some projects aped us on it, so 
> if I didn't change the numbering setup, but just wanted to reset the minor 
> number, I'd probably jump from 2.6 to 2.8 just for historical reasons.
> 
> But I could also see the second number as being the "year", and 2008 would 
> get 2.8, and then next year I'd make the first release of 2009 be 2.9.1 
> (and probably avoid the ".0" just because it again has the connotations of 
> a "big new untested release", which is not true in a date-based numbering 
> scheme). And then 2010 would be 3.0.1 etc..
> 
> Anyway, I have to say that I personally don't have any hugely strong 
> opinions on the numbering. I suspect others do, though, and I'm almost 
> certain that this is an absolutely _perfect_ "bikeshed-painting" subject 
> where thousands of people will be very passionate and send me their 
> opinions on why _their_ particular shed color is so much better.
> 
> The only thing I do know is that I agree that "big meaningless numbers" 
> are bad. "26" is already pretty big. As you point out, the 2.4.x series 
> has much bigger numbers yet.
> 
> And yes, something like "2008" is obviously numerically bigger, but has a 
> direct meaning and as such is possibly better than something arbitrary and 
> non-descriptive like "26".
> 
> Let the bike-shed-painting begin.
> 
> (I had planned on taking this up at the kernel summit, where the shed 
> painting is at least limited to a much smaller audience, but since you 
> asked..)
> 
> 			Linus
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> 
关注。
As I see, 如果编号方式在近期没有大的改变的话，至少在完善以下几点之后，内核就应该可以改到2.8.x了：
(1) ext4
(2) SLUB
(3) CFS
(4) kvm, xen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 489 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.zeuux.org/pipermail/zeuux-linux/attachments/20080721/e2c17f05/attachment.bin>