Messages in this thread | | | From | "Anthony Barbachan" <> | Subject | Re: I vote for incrimenting the version number to 3.0.0 | Date | Sat, 2 Jan 1999 19:55:30 -0500 |
| |
-----Original Message----- From: david parsons <o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s> Newsgroups: mlist.linux.kernel To: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu> Date: Friday, January 01, 1999 2:19 AM Subject: Re: I vote for incrimenting the version number to 3.0.0
>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." >
Actually this is the main reason I thought uping the version number may be a good idea, from what I've seen it looks as if s good number of associated programs will have to be changed when the kernel is upgraded on 2.0.x systems.
>>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. >
Same here I was using elf and the ext2 filesystem long before 2.0.0. The only main thing I had to change was to fix several perl programs.
> ____ > 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/ >
- 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/
| |