From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:52:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:52:47 -0400 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:49164 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:52:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 21:45:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Jeff Garzik cc: Larry Kessler , Alan Cox , linux-kernel mailing list , "Andrew V. Savochkin" , Rusty Russell , Richard J Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice driver In-Reply-To: <3D93C22F.9070006@pobox.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > For 2.6.x I care about getting the drivers _working_. > > Tangent question, is it definitely to be named 2.6? I see no real reason to call it 3.0. The order-of-magnitude threading improvements might just come closest to being a "new thing", but yeah, I still consider it 2.6.x. We don't have new architectures or other really fundamental stuff. In many ways the jump from 2.2 -> 2.4 was bigger than the 2.4 -> 2.6 thing will be, I suspect. But hey, it's just a number. I don't feel that strongly either way. I think version number inflation (can anybody say "distribution makers"?) is a bit silly, and the way the kernel numbering works there is no reason to bump the major number for regular releases. Linus