Next Linux kernel release could be 2.8.0
lwn.net/Articles/444314/
lwn.netPosted May 23, 2011, 8:09 PM UTC
36483
lwn.netSomeone buy Linus a fast laptop!
45
yeah I was thinking that.
For ~$1,000 if he is >5-10% more productive for >6 months how could his employer not do buy him a damn fast laptop! If doesn't even need a video card. Just throw in a quad-core i7 sandybridge.
17
The intel devs should fedex one overnight to him.
38
I have a new i5 sandy bridge laptop, linux is rather unstable on it. A lot of the crashes seem to be from Intel X graphics drivers, I've also had numerous kernel oops marked as 'Divide Error', I have no idea where they come from.
10
more reason to get linus one I would say!
57
Fuck everything about that.
Not buying a sandy bridge lappy.
3
mine actually is coming tomorrow (sager 5175).
Whatever bugs there are will be worked out in the coming months and the previous poster's X drivers problems weren't because of the Sandy Bridge chips (unless he was using the HD 3000 GPU in the CPU). Even that will work much better in a few months, Intel is pretty good with their linux drivers, especially on main components like cpu / motherboards / etc.
8
[deleted]
3
Linus works for someone? Wow.
2
[deleted]
4
[deleted]
1
Or he could just use ssh to use a remote fast machine and perform the necessary steps ;)
10
He's on an airplane. ssh is probably out of the question, even on airplane wifi.
6
And someone to carry it.
2
Have you ever tried building an "allyesconfig" kernel? On my dual core, dual processor server, it took a few seconds shy of two hours. Of course, that was my fault for not using a "-j" option, but still, it's one hell of a compile...
1
That makes all the difference! I build an allmodconfig kernel on my desktop (3 year old quadcore) in about 10 minutes.
1
Did you do "make modules" as well?
With an "allyesconfig" using all four cores, I got:
make -j8 6379.55s user 627.55s system 242% cpu 48:06.08 total
2
Yes -- I was running the kernels (and modules) I generated to try and narrow a bug down to a particular commit. I used make oldconfig </dev/null using a .config from a Debian-packaged kernel (which is essentially allmodconfig), and then either make -j15 all (I think it was 15 - usually 2x cores - 1, counting HT as doubling cores). Come to think of it, I stuck ccache in there eventually. I honestly can't remember if that made a huge difference to the times. Perhaps that got me the 10 minute compiles.
1
[deleted]
1
Which arbitrary number will Linus choose? News at 11.
39
Nice to see Linux hopping on the same bandwagon as Chrome/Firefox/IE devs in their approach to versioning: aka pick a big number, pick it now!
4
All the ancient distros have done it, I don't see why the kernel should be any different.
6
Debian and Slackware have been around so long that they should have big version numbers. Likewise, Fedora adds one to its version number with every release. It just happens that they have a release every six months.
That said, Debian's version number? 6.0.1. (Man, I remember when we figured we'd be stuck on 3.2 forever.)
As for Ubuntu, it's not really ancient. In any case, it doesn't have so much of a version number as a release date (which is actually a reasonable way to handle things IMO).
3
In any case, it doesn't have so much of a version number as a release date (which is actually a reasonable way to handle things IMO).
It'll screw up anybody looking for 6.04, but... hey. (I don't disagree with you, though.)
1
Who gives a fuck about version numbers?
I don't get why people are so caught up in them lately.
And regarding chrome. Google doesn't advertise the chrome version ANYWHERE on their site or in the program, its simply referred to as google chrome. I don't get why people think google is in some conspiracy to make the version number high for advertising purposes, when they don't advertise it. at all. Its simply how the chrome numbering scheme has always worked. Different developers use different numbering schemes, what the hell is the big deal? /rant.
2
New reply from Linus:
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 fourth one.
But no, it wouldn't be for 42. Despite THHGTTG, I think "40" is a fairly nice round number.
There's also the timing issue - since we no longer do version numbers based on features, but based on time, just saying "we're about to start the third decade" works as well as any other excuse.
But we'll see.
Linus
28
but when the voices tell me to do things, I listen
a man after my own heart.
27
I know i can identify!
1
[deleted]
-8
If this happens there would be less significant changes from 2.6 to 2.8 than there were from 2.4 to 2.6. This shows that the Linux kernel has reached a certain level of maturity.
13
2.6 should've really been 3.0. If that didn't qualify, nothing ever would.
13
What if they could rewrite the whole kernel as one hundred extremely elegant lines of code?
6
Perl code golf magic?
6
He said extremely elegant.
13
Perhaps, though it may require a few different languages. For example, the GUI interface should be programmed in Visual Basic.
By the way, I promised to ship in two weeks. Do you think you can get it done by then?
2
Did it make all old applications incompatible?
0
Didn't know that was a requirement to increment a kernel's major version number.
1
Well, now you do :)
1
Will v3.0 be Hurd based?
5
Then it would be GNU/Hurd, no Linux left in it at all.
2
more like GNU then.
4
What happened to 2.7?
7
Odd revision indicates unstable. This would be a stable release, so 2.7 would be skipped.
36
Linux hasn't had a development version in years and years. They started using that version control shit and then just started deciding to stick with 2.6.x for development and stable releases at the same time. It really was confusing. In the old days you knew 2.0 was stable and 2.1 was unstable.
18
Pardon my ignorance, but is this a standard or just used as far as the Linux kernel goes? I just seem to remember Firefox 3.5.x not being unstable.
4
No standard, rather a custom. Some other projects do this as well, e.g. gnome (each even stable is preceded by an uneven unstable).
45
I believe Perl does it too.
2
gnome (each even stable is preceded by an uneven unstable).
And with Gnome, you can tell which release a development version is closest to in terms of code similarity by the third digit. If it's close to 0, then it hasn't changed much since the last release. If it starts with 8 or 9, it should more closely resemble the next release.
1
Gimp does it as well. 2.7.x is the development branch that will become 2.8.0 once it's stable. It's all up to the developers to decide their version scheme.
8
It's a standard with the Linux kernel. Firefox 3.5 was indeed a stable release. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Odd-numbered_versions_for_development_releases
5
It's quite common in the open source world.
5
Linux (or maybe, more properly, Linus) invented the convention of odd numbers meaning unstable and even numbers meaning stable. Software had version numbers before Linux existed, but that particular formulation of version numbers is a new thing.
Also, since then, a lot of other projects have adopted that convention. The convention is by no means ubiquitous, but it is an idea that lots of people have adopted.
2
It is a convention used for the Linux kernel mostly. Others may use it also, but I only heard about it once outside of kernel development.
1
And after 2.8.0 we would have Linux 3.0.0, strange :o
7
Not necessarily. It may go from 2.8.0 to 2.10.0 . Software version numbering is not the same as incrementing a decimal point.
55
Right, I completely forget about it and thought about Gnome 3 :D.
4
Huh? Gnome went from 2.32 to 3.0
12
Yeah but he probably thought 2.32 < 2.4. This confused me for the longest time, and when I figured it out, I felt like I had just had the world's longest blonde moment.
7
It sounds like it could skip 2.8.0 and go straight to 3.0: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/23/405
14
I like the idea of the major version numbers being based on decades.
6
Why? What significant changes are occuring to signal this? I have no problem with 2.6.98 etc.
5
3
That's awesome! I've been saying this for years, so glad someone sat down and really formalized it :)
2
And the Linux policy is: never break ABI once it's released. Semver would shift the numbers to the left, but the significant digits would only move when Linus feels like it.
1
Assuming you are adding new features, aka expanding the API, that would cause a minor version increase.
1
And the Linux policy is: never break ABI once it's released.
0
That's for internal API breakage and not related to semver.
5
I'm not a programmer, so the only thing I think of when somebody says "kernel", is popcorn. I guess I'm pretty excited about it too, but for my own fatty reasons.
3
when the voices tell me to do things, I listen.
Cool! That's what Socrates said, too.
2
In other news, Linus will be painting his bikeshed this month, he might switch to blue!
2
What! It's obvious it should be red, it's a far better colour!
1
...when the voices tell me to do things, I listen....
1
[deleted]
1
"When the voices tell me to do things, I listen" lol
-4
Please wait until 2.6.42, it's the right answer.
I support this, for the lulz!!
-4
[deleted]
-6
It looks like you're trying to release a Linux kernel. Would you like some pointers on git merge commands?
I love this novelty account, but you need more material out there. =]
Someone should make a bad advice clippy for Linux :(
http://vigor.sourceforge.net/ That may work for you. If you use a more modern editor, you may look at http://www.vim.org/vimgor/
Enjoy!
That's a terrible idea. I'll start immediately.