That's good to know. Thanks for alleviating the confusion!
On 02/20/2012 10:24, Terry Griffin wrote: > 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 -- *Robert Miesen* *Email:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> *http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmiesen* See who we know in common <http://www.linkedin.com/e/wwk/42004246/> Want a signature like this? <http://www.linkedin.com/e/sig/42004246/> _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
