Subject: Re: next stable release version number (was re: Semaphore p1003.1b)
To: Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Marc Tooley <email@example.com>
Date: 10/01/2003 14:48:00
On Wednesday 01 October 2003 13:05, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 09:16:19AM -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > I'm shocked. We're not going to go with version number 1.7?
> > I always like the fact that we were still at version 1.6 while the
> > rest of the world was moving on towards version 9.8 or 12.3 so it'd
> > look good to the unwashed masses.
> The issue here is that with our current version numbering scheme:
> x.y.z, y is bumped for major releases and z for minor, bug-fix
> release. So x is never bumped, and will say at 1 forever. So just
> drop x, and start using 2 digit version numbers :)
But, but.. I thought the fact we were still at 1.x.x was a simple
against-the-grain statement making light of the fact that everyone and
their dog bumps their major version numbers five or six times a year? I
thought it was a great nose-thumbing, personally. Otherwise we'd be at
6.2 or so right now. Just feels wrong.
I think if MP and SA can be forced into the stable (ha ha) that would
justify the move to 2.x.x, but let's still have the three version
numbers, I say. :)
If it's bound to be 2.x, near as I can tell the following major
functionality has been added/modified:
1. Semi-functional MP
2. Mostly functional scheduler activations
3. Updated compiler
Any other major changes? Are #1 and #2 in a state to be released as
stable? I've been reading some messages suggesting that there are
certain hard problems that won't be solved anytime soon without
significant effort on the part of Some Brave Soul Out There.
How about a state-of-the-kernel address for those of us who don't follow
it close enough to be aware of the more significant modifications?