On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:23:19 -0800 (PST), Rich Shepard wrote: > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, Robert Miesen wrote: > >> Previously, all even numbered minor releases were stable releases >> while >> all odd-numbered minor releases were development / bleeding-edge >> releases. >> But now a kernel version 3.1 is marked as being *stable* on >> http://www.kernel.org! If there has been a change in the version >> numbering >> scheme, could someone bring me up to speed on what the new version >> numbering scheme is? > > I read not long ago that Linus and the kernel development team did > make > changes, but I did not pay attention to the rationale. You can > probably find > the explanation on kernel.org or with a Web search. > > Rich >
Yes, there was a change. Version 3.0 marked the 20th anniversery of the Linux kernel, and then they dropped part of the numbering pattern. Under 2.6 each new release was 2.6.x. The stable-release team would extend that to 2.6.x.y for their releases. Starting with 3.0 each new release is 3.x (or 3.x.0) and the stable-release team gets the third part for their use. So no more four-part version numbers. Terry _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
