Re: [OT] Please don't call it 3.0!! (was Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA)))

[Wakko Warner]

> So what's the verdict?  Are we calling it 3.0 or 2.6?  Who am I to say
> this, but I really feel calling it kernel 3.0 is not fully justified.  We
> should stick with the 2.x series until major ABI or API changes break the
> C library in massive ways, at which point we increment the major version
> number.
> 
> Although its tempting to appeal to the mainstream by inflating the version
> number artificially (what's Redhat up to now? 8.0?? sheesh!!), we have to
> respect ourselves as developers.  Why call it 3.0, other than to stroke
> our own egos?

what about when they jumped from 1.3.x to 2.0.x?  I suggested around the pre
2.4 days it be called 3.0 becuase of that jump there.  IIRC it was slackware
that jumped to be versioned up there with redhat.  There've only been 2
major releases.

-- 
 Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals