(Short?) merge window reminder
2011/5/24 Jan Engelhardt :
> On Tuesday 2011-05-24 14:30, Jacek Luczak wrote:
>
>>2011/5/24 Jan Engelhardt :
>>> On Tuesday 2011-05-24 01:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>
>>>>Another advantage of switching numbering models (ie 3.0 instead of
>>>>2.8.x) would be that it would also make the "odd numbers are also
>>>>numbers" transition much more natural.
>>>>
>>>>Because of our historical even/odd model, I wouldn't do a 2.7.x -
>>>>there's just too much history of 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 being development
>>>>trees.
>>>
>>> .oO(Though once 2.{7 or more, odd} trickle into the distros, it would
>>> become pretty much apparent that they are not devel.)
>>>
>>>>And then in another few years (probably before getting close to 3.40,
>>>>so I'm not going to make a big deal of 3 = "third decade"), I'd just
>>>>do 4.0 etc.
>>>
>>> While 2.6 has certainly worn out, already thinking of a 4.0 is highly
>>> reminiscient of the version number arms race Firefox and ChromeBrowser
>>> are doing currently.
>>>
>>>>Because all our releases are supposed to be stable releases these
>>>>days, and if we get rid of one level of numbering, I feel perfectly
>>>>fine with getting rid of the even/odd history too.
>>>
>>> If I remember past-time discussions right, ELF was the contributing
>>> factor to bump the major number to 2.0 back then; ever since 2.0, no
>>> similarly breakthrough-ing event has occurred.
>>
>>What then about BKL removal? Nice place to celebrate with version jump
>>and heaving some beers.
>
> The BKL going away was not a change that would require new
> userspace programs.
True but as you I guess - kind off - notice there's no such event that
would launch fireworks and we get features smoothly. By that then we
should celebrate killing old nightmares aka BKL. It's more like - lets
not find the reason but include one just to feel better. At the end
the simplified version convention is the best reason to do this cut
off. I even plan to send a truck full of chickens to Linus if this
will convince him :) Then, while describing new kernel deployment, I
won't need to pronounce the cool sounding - ,,Mika so I've now
installed two(dot)six(dot)thirty-five(dot)forty-one(dash)one
version.''
Cheers,
-Jacek
(Short?) merge window reminder
2011/5/24 Jan Engelhardt :
> On Tuesday 2011-05-24 01:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>>Another advantage of switching numbering models (ie 3.0 instead of
>>2.8.x) would be that it would also make the "odd numbers are also
>>numbers" transition much more natural.
>>
>>Because of our historical even/odd model, I wouldn't do a 2.7.x -
>>there's just too much history of 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 being development
>>trees.
>
> .oO(Though once 2.{7 or more, odd} trickle into the distros, it would
> become pretty much apparent that they are not devel.)
>
>>And then in another few years (probably before getting close to 3.40,
>>so I'm not going to make a big deal of 3 = "third decade"), I'd just
>>do 4.0 etc.
>
> While 2.6 has certainly worn out, already thinking of a 4.0 is highly
> reminiscient of the version number arms race Firefox and ChromeBrowser
> are doing currently.
>
>>Because all our releases are supposed to be stable releases these
>>days, and if we get rid of one level of numbering, I feel perfectly
>>fine with getting rid of the even/odd history too.
>
> If I remember past-time discussions right, ELF was the contributing
> factor to bump the major number to 2.0 back then; ever since 2.0, no
> similarly breakthrough-ing event has occurred.
What then about BKL removal? Nice place to celebrate with version jump
and heaving some beers.
-Jacek
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder
2011/5/24 Jan Engelhardt jeng...@medozas.de:
On Tuesday 2011-05-24 01:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Another advantage of switching numbering models (ie 3.0 instead of
2.8.x) would be that it would also make the odd numbers are also
numbers transition much more natural.
Because of our historical even/odd model, I wouldn't do a 2.7.x -
there's just too much history of 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 being development
trees.
.oO(Though once 2.{7 or more, odd} trickle into the distros, it would
become pretty much apparent that they are not devel.)
And then in another few years (probably before getting close to 3.40,
so I'm not going to make a big deal of 3 = third decade), I'd just
do 4.0 etc.
While 2.6 has certainly worn out, already thinking of a 4.0 is highly
reminiscient of the version number arms race Firefox and ChromeBrowser
are doing currently.
Because all our releases are supposed to be stable releases these
days, and if we get rid of one level of numbering, I feel perfectly
fine with getting rid of the even/odd history too.
If I remember past-time discussions right, ELF was the contributing
factor to bump the major number to 2.0 back then; ever since 2.0, no
similarly breakthrough-ing event has occurred.
What then about BKL removal? Nice place to celebrate with version jump
and heaving some beers.
-Jacek
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder
2011/5/24 Jan Engelhardt jeng...@medozas.de:
On Tuesday 2011-05-24 14:30, Jacek Luczak wrote:
2011/5/24 Jan Engelhardt jeng...@medozas.de:
On Tuesday 2011-05-24 01:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Another advantage of switching numbering models (ie 3.0 instead of
2.8.x) would be that it would also make the odd numbers are also
numbers transition much more natural.
Because of our historical even/odd model, I wouldn't do a 2.7.x -
there's just too much history of 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 being development
trees.
.oO(Though once 2.{7 or more, odd} trickle into the distros, it would
become pretty much apparent that they are not devel.)
And then in another few years (probably before getting close to 3.40,
so I'm not going to make a big deal of 3 = third decade), I'd just
do 4.0 etc.
While 2.6 has certainly worn out, already thinking of a 4.0 is highly
reminiscient of the version number arms race Firefox and ChromeBrowser
are doing currently.
Because all our releases are supposed to be stable releases these
days, and if we get rid of one level of numbering, I feel perfectly
fine with getting rid of the even/odd history too.
If I remember past-time discussions right, ELF was the contributing
factor to bump the major number to 2.0 back then; ever since 2.0, no
similarly breakthrough-ing event has occurred.
What then about BKL removal? Nice place to celebrate with version jump
and heaving some beers.
The BKL going away was not a change that would require new
userspace programs.
True but as you I guess - kind off - notice there's no such event that
would launch fireworks and we get features smoothly. By that then we
should celebrate killing old nightmares aka BKL. It's more like - lets
not find the reason but include one just to feel better. At the end
the simplified version convention is the best reason to do this cut
off. I even plan to send a truck full of chickens to Linus if this
will convince him :) Then, while describing new kernel deployment, I
won't need to pronounce the cool sounding - ,,Mika so I've now
installed two(dot)six(dot)thirty-five(dot)forty-one(dash)one
version.''
Cheers,
-Jacek
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
