Linux 5.0-rc1

#1

Post by ojn » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 2:17 AM UTC

Re: Linux 5.0-rc1

#2

Post by azhenley » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 2:56 AM UTC

I went to see what the big changes were to justify a new major version number and saw:

“The numbering change is not indicative of anything special. If you want to have an official reason, it's that I ran out of fingers and toes to count on, so 4.21 became 5.0”

I laughed out loud.

Re: Linux 5.0-rc1

#3

Post by Waterluvian » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 3:04 AM UTC

azhenley wrote: post #2

I went to see what the big changes were to justify a new major version number and saw: “The numbering change is not indicative of anything special. If you want to have an official reason, it's that I ran out of fingers and toes to count on, so 4.21 became 5.0” I laughed out loud.

I can't help myself. I need to know why 5.0. Is there a reason, even a pointless one? Or is it truly a "just because" moment?

Re: Linux 5.0-rc1

#4

Post by mycall » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 3:06 AM UTC

RIP ISDN

Re: Linux 5.0-rc1

#5

Post by uniformlyrandom » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 3:07 AM UTC

I actually prefer a date-based approach to release naming. Given continuous flow of kernel development, I would advocate for releasing a major every year, a minor every month, and patches as needed. Gives you better indication of how much behind you are by just looking at the version.

Re: Linux 5.0-rc1

#6

Post by wungsten » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 3:08 AM UTC

Waterluvian wrote: post #3

azhenley wrote: post #2

I went to see what the big changes were to justify a new major version number and saw: “The numbering change is not indicative of anything special. If you want to have an official reason, it's that I ran out of fingers and toes to count on, so 4.21 became 5.0” I laughed out loud.

I can't help myself. I need to know why 5.0. Is there a reason, even a pointless one? Or is it truly a "just because" moment?

Any reason you choose :)

From the OP email:

| So go wild. Make up your own reason for why it's 5.0.

Re: Linux 5.0-rc1

#7

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 3:16 AM UTC

uniformlyrandom wrote: post #5

I actually prefer a date-based approach to release naming. Given continuous flow of kernel development, I would advocate for releasing a major every year, a minor every month, and patches as needed. Gives you better indication of how much behind you are by just looking at the version.

[deleted]

Re: Linux 5.0-rc1

#8

Post by sys_64738 » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 3:26 AM UTC

Maybe the kernel should switch to Chrome style versioning? It would solve this dilemma.

Re: Linux 5.0-rc1

#9

Post by codersbrew » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 3:27 AM UTC

mycall wrote: post #4

RIP ISDN

Memories!

Re: Linux 5.0-rc1

#10

Post by usaphp » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 3:30 AM UTC

Waterluvian wrote: post #3

azhenley wrote: post #2

I went to see what the big changes were to justify a new major version number and saw: “The numbering change is not indicative of anything special. If you want to have an official reason, it's that I ran out of fingers and toes to count on, so 4.21 became 5.0” I laughed out loud.

I can't help myself. I need to know why 5.0. Is there a reason, even a pointless one? Or is it truly a "just because" moment?

> even a pointless one

> I ran out of fingers and toes to count on