From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 07:05:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 07:05:34 -0400 Received: from vladimir.pegasys.ws ([64.220.160.58]:2321 "HELO vladimir.pegasys.ws") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 07:05:28 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 04:10:45 -0700 From: jw schultz To: linux-kernel mailing list Subject: Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice driver Message-ID: <20020930111045.GB7967@pegasys.ws> Mail-Followup-To: jw schultz , linux-kernel mailing list References:

<20020928091634.GC32017@pegasys.ws> <200209300911.g8U9BKp18642@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> <20020930102228.GB28157@louise.pinerecords.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020930102228.GB28157@louise.pinerecords.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 12:22:28PM +0200, Tomas Szepe wrote: > > Technically correct. Major version jump should be made when there is > > a binary incompatibility. It can be made without, but it is usually > > done for marketing reasons. I hope we'll never have marketing reasons > > for lk. :-) We can be actually _proud_ to have 2.$BIGNUM instead of > > 3.0 > > ... and go Solaris, as in 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 7, 8, 9. :D I've no problem per-se with 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10... And i see no reason to compare it with Solaris where numbers are mostly marketing although their major number refereed to the codebase (bsd vs SVr4). I can see a number of real reasons to advance to 3.x: Finishing the block layer and VM rewrite, maybe; making FS blocksize independent of pagesize, probably; flexibility with regard to pagesize for archs that support variable pagesize (if market share and performance gains add up the CPU designers will give it to us), probably; initramfs, perhaps; new module interface, possibly; hotplug everything (and i mean everything), maybe; elimination of the 32 bit versions of system-calls and other deprecated interfaces, absolutely; new filesystems and device drivers, nope; incremental performance improvements, you've got to be kidding; It is just that right now, from what little i can see, 2.5 is part way through the process of a block layer redesign and the VM is in a similar state. Evidently LVM is in limbo but that has to be at least operational before code freeze. Driverfs looks promising but the API isn't even set and documented yet. BTW what happened to moving away from major/minor numbers? The developers are doing a great job and things are moving along but 2.6 looks more than anything else like a stabilized snapshot so the improvements become available (trustworthy) for production. That is consistent with "release early, release often". -- ________________________________________________________________ J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies email address: jw@pegasys.ws Remember Cernan and Schmitt