Read about it on lwn.net or read the linux kernel mailing list discussion

Linus held a vote, it's about tied for date based naming and straight 3.x based naming. Dumping, that is, the 2.4, 2.6, in favor of just 3.x or 4.x, I think they looked at how long the 2.6 series went and realized there was no real need for having the second digit now.

Given that it won't really matter what the others in that group think in the end, and that Linus wants it to be 3.x for the next series, which will be here either at what would have been 2.6.40 or 41, it's not clear from the discussion, it's time to get your scripts ready to handle this change.

It would be nice if they would actually make up their minds, but I'm betting the initial proposed 2.8.x will not be done, and the 3.x will. Makes sense I think, the 2.6 didn't really convey any real information a few years after it replaced the 2.4, just an extra digit.

I do not see the date based version number as happening for the very simple reason outlined by a few lwn.net comment thread posters: if you release a product that runs say, 2009.3, that suggests you are using very old kernel, whereas if you release one using 2.6.24, that doesn't really say much, and since most real kernel devs work for companies that care about such marketing issues, I think it's safe to say we'll be seeing the 3.x scheme sooner than later.

Plus, date based is silly when you don't know when the actual release happens, could be x month, or y.
Back to top