On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 11:07 -0400, jonsmirl at gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Alan Cox
> wrote:
> > Can we drop most of MCA, EISA and ISA bus if we are going to have a
> big
> > version change ? A driver spring clean is much overdue and it's all
> in
> > git in case someone w
On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 11:07 -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Alan Cox
> wrote:
> > Can we drop most of MCA, EISA and ISA bus if we are going to have a
> big
> > version change ? A driver spring clean is much overdue and it's all
> in
> > git in case someone wish
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> So if you combine all the above:
>
> D. Y. N
> D - Is the decade since birth (1991 not 1990)
> Y - is the year in the decade so you have 3.1.x, 3.2.x, .. 3.10.x, 4.1.X and
> so on
> Nice incremental number.
> N - The Linus release of this
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Zimny Lech wrote:
Hi,
2011/5/24 Lisa Milne :
So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
not "3.0.0" - the stable team would get the third digit rather than
the fourth one.
How about stardates?
This is a wonderful idea! :)
I'd rather go for a g
On 05/23/2011 11:52 PM, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 00:33, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
>>> cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>>
>> So I'm toying with 3.0 (an
On 05/23/2011 11:52 PM, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 00:33, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
>>> cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>>
>> So I'm toying with 3.0 (an
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Zimny Lech wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2011/5/24 Lisa Milne :
>>> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
>>> not "3.0.0" - the stable team would get the third digit rather than
>>> the fourth one.
>>
>> How about stardates?
>
> This is a wonderful idea! :)
I'
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> So if you combine all the above:
>
> D. Y. N
> D - Is the decade since birth (1991 not 1990)
> Y - is the year in the decade so you have 3.1.x, 3.2.x, .. 3.10.x, 4.1.X and
> so on
> ? ?Nice incremental number.
> N - The Linus release of this
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Also, when someone in my lab installs here> on a box that's running software I wrote that needs to support
> modern high-speed peripherals, then I can say "What? You seriously
> expect this stuff to work on Linux 2007? Let's install a slightly les
On Tuesday 24 May 2011 23:05:30 Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Tuesday 2011-05-24 20:48, eschvoca wrote:
> >On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> It's not about features. It hasn't been about features for forever.
> >
> >Using the date also clearly communicates it is not about fea
On Tuesday 24 May 2011 23:05:30 Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Tuesday 2011-05-24 20:48, eschvoca wrote:
> >On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> It's not about features. It hasn't been about features for forever.
> >
> >Using the date also clearly communicates it is not about fea
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Also, when someone in my lab installs here> on a box that's running software I wrote that needs to support
> modern high-speed peripherals, then I can say "What? You seriously
> expect this stuff to work on Linux 2007? Let's install a slightly les
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
> not "3.0.0" - the stable team would get the third digit rather than
> the fourth one.
How about stardates? That'd make a release made now 64860.8
I really should sleep more...
--
Lisa Milne
On Monday 23 May 2011, 22:33:48 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42
> > before cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
> not "3.0.0" -
On Tuesday 2011-05-24 20:48, eschvoca wrote:
>On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> It's not about features. It hasn't been about features for forever.
>
>Using the date also clearly communicates it is not about features.
On the contrary: Whenever a 2.6.x release was set ou
Hi,
2011/5/24 Lisa Milne :
>> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
>> not "3.0.0" - the stable team would get the third digit rather than
>> the fourth one.
>
> How about stardates?
This is a wonderful idea! :)
> That'd make a release made now 64860.8
>
> I really
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting
> too big. I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that
> this PS is going to result in more discussion than the rest, but when
> the voices tell me to do things, I listen.
Correct :)
I wou
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On 23.05.2011 13:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
cutting 3.0.0! :-)
So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it rea
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:36 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>> I think this whole discussion misses the essence of the new development
>> model, which is that we no longer do these kinds of feature-based major
>> milestones.
>
> Indeed.
>
>
On 23.05.2011 13:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
> > cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
> not "3.0.0" - the s
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 03:43:48PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Can we drop most of MCA, EISA and ISA bus if we are going to have a big
> version change ? A driver spring clean is much overdue and it's all in
> git in case someone wishes to sneak out at midnight and bring some crawly
> horror back fro
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 07:17:21PM -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> > So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
> > not "3.0.0" - the stable team would get the third digit rather than
> > the fourth one.
>
> If we change from 2.6.X to 3.X, then if we don't change anything else,
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
> not "3.0.0" - the stable team would get the third digit rather than
> the fourth one.
How about stardates? That'd make a release made now 64860.8
I really should sleep more...
--
Lisa Milne
On Tuesday 2011-05-24 17:46, Ralf Baechle wrote:
>On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 03:43:48PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>> Can we drop most of MCA, EISA and ISA bus if we are going to have a big
>> version change ? A driver spring clean is much overdue and it's all in
>> git in case someone wishes to sneak
On Monday 23 May 2011, 22:33:48 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42
> > before cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
> not "3.0.0" -
On Tuesday 2011-05-24 20:48, eschvoca wrote:
>On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> It's not about features. It hasn't been about features for forever.
>
>Using the date also clearly communicates it is not about features.
On the contrary: Whenever a 2.6.x release was set ou
Hi,
2011/5/24 Lisa Milne :
>> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
>> not "3.0.0" - the stable team would get the third digit rather than
>> the fourth one.
>
> How about stardates?
This is a wonderful idea! :)
> That'd make a release made now 64860.8
>
> I really
On Tue, 24 May 2011 14:30:59 +0200, Jacek Luczak said:
> 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" tr
On Tue, 24 May 2011 14:30:59 +0200, Jacek Luczak said:
> 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" tr
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting
> too big. I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that
> this PS is going to result in more discussion than the rest, but when
> the voices tell me to do things, I listen.
Correct :)
I wou
On 23.05.2011 13:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
> > cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
> not "3.0.0" - the s
On Tuesday 2011-05-24 17:46, Ralf Baechle wrote:
>On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 03:43:48PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>> Can we drop most of MCA, EISA and ISA bus if we are going to have a big
>> version change ? A driver spring clean is much overdue and it's all in
>> git in case someone wishes to sneak
On 05/23/2011 04:33 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
>> cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
> not "3.0.0" - the st
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 03:43:48PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Can we drop most of MCA, EISA and ISA bus if we are going to have a big
> version change ? A driver spring clean is much overdue and it's all in
> git in case someone wishes to sneak out at midnight and bring some crawly
> horror back fro
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 07:17:21PM -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> > So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
> > not "3.0.0" - the stable team would get the third digit rather than
> > the fourth one.
>
> If we change from 2.6.X to 3.X, then if we don't change anything else,
Can we drop most of MCA, EISA and ISA bus if we are going to have a big
version change ? A driver spring clean is much overdue and it's all in
git in case someone wishes to sneak out at midnight and bring some crawly
horror back from the dead.
Alan
> If we change from 2.6.X to 3.X, then if we don't change anything else,
> then successive stable release will cause the LINUX_VERSION_CODE to be
> incremented. This isn't necessary bad, but it would be a different
> from what we have now.
I think I prefer 3 digits. Otherwise we will have to pass
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
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 mu
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:36 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>> I think this whole discussion misses the essence of the new development
>> model, which is that we no longer do these kinds of feature-based major
>> milestones.
>
> Indeed.
>
>
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
On 05/23/2011 04:33 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
cutting 3.0.0! :-)
So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
not "3.0.0" - the stable team w
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 -
>th
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> On 23.05.2011 13:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
>>> cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>>
>> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in t
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
> Can we drop most of MCA, EISA and ISA bus if we are going to have a big
> version change ? A driver spring clean is much overdue and it's all in
> git in case someone wishes to sneak out at midnight and bring some crawly
> horror back from the de
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:36 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> I think this whole discussion misses the essence of the new development
> model, which is that we no longer do these kinds of feature-based major
> milestones.
Indeed.
It's not about features. It hasn't been about features for forever.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:36 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> I think this whole discussion misses the essence of the new development
> model, which is that we no longer do these kinds of feature-based major
> milestones.
Indeed.
It's not about features. It hasn't been about features for forever.
On 05/24/2011 08:07 AM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Can we drop most of MCA, EISA and ISA bus if we are going to have a big
>> version change ? A driver spring clean is much overdue and it's all in
>> git in case someone wishes to sneak out at m
On 05/24/2011 08:07 AM, jonsmirl at gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Alan Cox
> wrote:
>> Can we drop most of MCA, EISA and ISA bus if we are going to have a big
>> version change ? A driver spring clean is much overdue and it's all in
>> git in case someone wishes to sneak ou
On Tuesday 24 May 2011, 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 -
> th
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
> Can we drop most of MCA, EISA and ISA bus if we are going to have a big
> version change ? A driver spring clean is much overdue and it's all in
> git in case someone wishes to sneak out at midnight and bring some crawly
> horror back from the de
Can we drop most of MCA, EISA and ISA bus if we are going to have a big
version change ? A driver spring clean is much overdue and it's all in
git in case someone wishes to sneak out at midnight and bring some crawly
horror back from the dead.
Alan
___
d
> If we change from 2.6.X to 3.X, then if we don't change anything else,
> then successive stable release will cause the LINUX_VERSION_CODE to be
> incremented. This isn't necessary bad, but it would be a different
> from what we have now.
I think I prefer 3 digits. Otherwise we will have to pass
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
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 mu
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
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 -
>th
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 03:21:21PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
> > > cutting 3.0.0! :-)
> >
> > So
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
> > cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
On 5/23/11, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
>> cutting 3.0.0! :-)
I think, the best time for this, after reorganize the ARM arch folder / tree.
>
> So I'm toying with 3.
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:21:26PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> They tell him to avoid the question to which 42 is the answer.
What 2.6 Linux kernel version was the last before 3.0?
-- Steve
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 00:33, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
>> cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
> not "3.0.0"
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 12:22 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:13:29PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting
> > too big. I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that
> > this PS is going to result in mor
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting
> too big. I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that
> this PS is going to result in more discussion than the rest, but when
> the voices tell me to do things, I liste
* Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
> > cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
> not "3.0.0" - the stable team would
* 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.
Yeah, it sounds really good to get rid of the (meanwhile) meaningless
"2.6." prefix from our
On Tuesday 24 May 2011, 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 -
> th
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 00:33, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
>> cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
> not "3.0.0"
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 12:22 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:13:29PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting
> > too big. I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that
> > this PS is going to result in mor
On 5/23/11, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
>> cutting 3.0.0! :-)
I think, the best time for this, after reorganize the ARM arch folder / tree.
>
> So I'm toying with 3.
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting
> too big. I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that
> this PS is going to result in more discussion than the rest, but when
> the voices tell me to do things, I liste
* Linus Torvalds wrote:
> PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting too big.
> I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that this PS is going
> to result in more discussion than the rest, but when the voices tell me to do
> things, I listen.
I really
Hi Linus,
On 05/23/2011 04:33 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
>> cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
> not "3.0
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
> > cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
* Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
> > cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
> not "3.0.0" - the stable team would
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
>> cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
> not "3.0.0
* 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.
Yeah, it sounds really good to get rid of the (meanwhile) meaningless
"2.6." prefix from our
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 03:21:21PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
> > > cutting 3.0.0! :-)
> >
> > So
Hi Linus,
On 05/23/2011 04:33 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
>> cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
> not "3.0
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:21:26PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> They tell him to avoid the question to which 42 is the answer.
What 2.6 Linux kernel version was the last before 3.0?
-- Steve
On 05/23/2011 04:17 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
>>> cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>>
>> So I'm toying with 3.0 (
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 develop
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 develop
On 05/23/2011 04:17 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
>>> cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>>
>> So I'm toying with 3.0 (
On Mon, 23 May 2011 19:17:21 -0400 Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
> > > cutting 3.0.0! :-)
> >
> > So
On Mon, 23 May 2011 19:17:21 -0400 Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
> > > cutting 3.0.0! :-)
> >
> > So
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
>> cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
> not "3.0.0
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
> > cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
> > cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>
> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
* Linus Torvalds wrote:
> PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting too big.
> I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that this PS is going
> to result in more discussion than the rest, but when the voices tell me to do
> things, I listen.
I really
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
> cutting 3.0.0! :-)
So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
not "3.0.0" - the stable team would get the third digit rather than
the four
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
> cutting 3.0.0! :-)
So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
not "3.0.0" - the stable team would get the third digit rather than
the four
On Mon, 23 May 2011 21:25:25 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting
> > too big. I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that
> > this PS is going to result in more dis
On Mon, 23 May 2011 21:25:25 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting
> > too big. I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that
> > this PS is going to result in more dis
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:13:29PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting
> too big. I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that
> this PS is going to result in more discussion than the rest, but when
> the voices tell me
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:13:29PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> PS. The voices in my head also tell me that the numbers are getting
> too big. I may just call the thing 2.8.0. And I almost guarantee that
> this PS is going to result in more discussion than the rest, but when
> the voices tell me
So I've been busily merging stuff, and just wanted to send out a quick
reminder that I warned people in the 39 announcement that this might
be a slightly shorter merge window than usual, so that I can avoid
having to make the -rc1 release from Japan using my slow laptop (doing
"allyesconfig" builds
So I've been busily merging stuff, and just wanted to send out a quick
reminder that I warned people in the 39 announcement that this might
be a slightly shorter merge window than usual, so that I can avoid
having to make the -rc1 release from Japan using my slow laptop (doing
"allyesconfig" builds
98 matches
Mail list logo
