6 ms·

"But I'd like to point out (yet again) that we don't do feature-based releases, and that "5.0" doesn't mean anything more than that the 4.x numbers started gett

by Nux 8y ago

"But I'd like to point out (yet again) that we don't do feature-based releases, and that "5.0" doesn't mean anything more than that the 4.x numbers started getting big enough that I ran out of fingers and toes. Linus"

z3t4 8y ago
Versioning is hard. Some people might claim that product A is better then product B because it has a higher version. Or they are getting annoyed by "lack of progress" of a semver not having major releases (breaking changes) often enough. People read too much into the version nr. Making a new version might be a way to get some news buzz.
- benj111 8y ago
  That isn't versioning per se, that's just branding and marketing and bike shedding. Not that I disagree with your point though.
- fendy3002 8y ago
  On the other hand it's very useful for software libraries to detect breaking change. Lately I've found that node 8.14 added header size restriction that produce bugs, where it would've been easier if they just push to v10 instead. However talking about kernel maybe it isn't that much needed unless significant feature and breaking changes introduced.
  - Osiris 8y ago
    That change was to fix a vulnerability, hence why it was made to the LTS version. A flag was later added to make it customizable (after they realized it broke stuff).
  - htfy96 8y ago
    The problem is what is a breaking/major change for kernel? Is it referring to user-space API? The kernel ABI? Or the driver functionality/ABI?
ksec 8y ago
I remember it was briefly discussed but I cant search it on Google. If it isn't a feature release schedule, why they don't have have the Year as Version number? So Linux 2019.1 or Linux 19.1 , The First Release of 2019.
- igravious 8y ago
  Possibly because lots of software out there expects n.n(n) and not 20nn.n(n) ?
  - btgeekboy 8y ago
    Wasn’t part of the reason behind the 2.6->3.0 change to help shatter some of those preconceived notions about version numbers?
  - Daviey 8y ago
    Providing each year is a higher number than last year, why does it make it incompatible?
    - morganvachon 8y ago
      We had a turn of the century during Linux's life span, 1999-2000, which coincidentally was going to be a problem because so many computer systems used a two digit year.
      - blixt 8y ago
        So we have 80 years to solve the issue of supporting the version going from 99.X to 2100.1 :)
        ehnto 8y ago
        Now double that estimate, add some padding, and I am looking forward to the release of 2230.1
baldfat 8y ago
Similar to KDE 4.0 being beta and everyone lost their minds.
- magduf 8y ago
  No, the big problem there was that KDE 4.0 was really alpha-quality, but all the distros just adopted it as-is and made it the only choice. So if you moved to a newer distro version to stay up-to-date with everything else a distro encompasses, you got stuck with KDE 4.0 whether you wanted it or not; the distros refused to continue to support KDE 3.x while the 4.x series matured. That whole debacle can mostly be blamed on the distros, though the KDE team can get a little blame for their numbering scheme (moving from "3.95" or whatever to "4.0" and not explicitly calling it "alpha" or "beta"). The distros are the ones who are supposed to be exercising some quality control and making intelligent decisions about what to include or not, rather than just blindly throwing things in from other projects.
  - TheCycoONE 8y ago
    My recollection of the events was that the KDE team was very much promoting 4.0 as a general release. The beta story came about later. Certainly the release announcement looks like a public release: https://kde.org/announcements/4.0/ https://kde.org/announcements/4.0/
    - emilsedgh 8y ago
      Not really. Take a look at this blog post written right before the 4.0 release by kdesktop's maintainer who founded Plasma: http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2008/01/talking-bluntly.html http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2008/01/talking-bluntly.html To quote: KDE 4.0.0 is our "will eat your children" release of KDE4, not the next release of KDE 3.5. The fact that many already use it daily for their desktop (including myself) shows that it really won't eat your children, but it is part of that early stage in the release system of KDE4. It's the "0.0" release. The amount of new software in KDE4 is remarkable and we're going the open route with that.
coldtea 8y ago
"That will never be the case as long as humans are humans, 5.0 will mean something more than a decimal point update, even if the only difference is a couple of comment fixes and a regression in the MM" (me)
h1d 8y ago
What is their problem for not simply following semver?
- twtw 8y ago
  What would be a breaking change for Linux that would justify a major version increment? Linux doesn't break userspace, and there are no stable internal APIs or ABIs.
  - barbecue_sauce 8y ago
    Also worth nothing that semver is a relatively recent phenomenon, at least as far as being articulated ideologically.
Koshkin 8y ago
I remember the transition from 2.4 to 2.6 being rather painful, whereas upgrading from 4.x to 5.0 would, no doubt, be a breeze.

by Nux 8y ago

z3t4 8y ago

Versioning is hard. Some people might claim that product A is better then product B because it has a higher version. Or they are getting annoyed by "lack of progress" of a semver not having major releases (breaking changes) often enough. People read too much into the version nr. Making a new version might be a way to get some news buzz.

benj111 8y ago
That isn't versioning per se, that's just branding and marketing and bike shedding. Not that I disagree with your point though.
fendy3002 8y ago
On the other hand it's very useful for software libraries to detect breaking change. Lately I've found that node 8.14 added header size restriction that produce bugs, where it would've been easier if they just push to v10 instead. However talking about kernel maybe it isn't that much needed unless significant feature and breaking changes introduced.
- Osiris 8y ago
  That change was to fix a vulnerability, hence why it was made to the LTS version. A flag was later added to make it customizable (after they realized it broke stuff).
- htfy96 8y ago
  The problem is what is a breaking/major change for kernel? Is it referring to user-space API? The kernel ABI? Or the driver functionality/ABI?

ksec 8y ago

I remember it was briefly discussed but I cant search it on Google. If it isn't a feature release schedule, why they don't have have the Year as Version number? So Linux 2019.1 or Linux 19.1 , The First Release of 2019.

igravious 8y ago
Possibly because lots of software out there expects n.n(n) and not 20nn.n(n) ?
- btgeekboy 8y ago
  Wasn’t part of the reason behind the 2.6->3.0 change to help shatter some of those preconceived notions about version numbers?
- Daviey 8y ago
  Providing each year is a higher number than last year, why does it make it incompatible?
  - morganvachon 8y ago
    We had a turn of the century during Linux's life span, 1999-2000, which coincidentally was going to be a problem because so many computer systems used a two digit year.
    - blixt 8y ago
      So we have 80 years to solve the issue of supporting the version going from 99.X to 2100.1 :)
      - ehnto 8y ago
        Now double that estimate, add some padding, and I am looking forward to the release of 2230.1

baldfat 8y ago

Similar to KDE 4.0 being beta and everyone lost their minds.

magduf 8y ago
No, the big problem there was that KDE 4.0 was really alpha-quality, but all the distros just adopted it as-is and made it the only choice. So if you moved to a newer distro version to stay up-to-date with everything else a distro encompasses, you got stuck with KDE 4.0 whether you wanted it or not; the distros refused to continue to support KDE 3.x while the 4.x series matured. That whole debacle can mostly be blamed on the distros, though the KDE team can get a little blame for their numbering scheme (moving from "3.95" or whatever to "4.0" and not explicitly calling it "alpha" or "beta"). The distros are the ones who are supposed to be exercising some quality control and making intelligent decisions about what to include or not, rather than just blindly throwing things in from other projects.
- TheCycoONE 8y ago
  My recollection of the events was that the KDE team was very much promoting 4.0 as a general release. The beta story came about later. Certainly the release announcement looks like a public release: https://kde.org/announcements/4.0/ https://kde.org/announcements/4.0/
  - emilsedgh 8y ago
    Not really. Take a look at this blog post written right before the 4.0 release by kdesktop's maintainer who founded Plasma: http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2008/01/talking-bluntly.html http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2008/01/talking-bluntly.html To quote: KDE 4.0.0 is our "will eat your children" release of KDE4, not the next release of KDE 3.5. The fact that many already use it daily for their desktop (including myself) shows that it really won't eat your children, but it is part of that early stage in the release system of KDE4. It's the "0.0" release. The amount of new software in KDE4 is remarkable and we're going the open route with that.

coldtea 8y ago

"That will never be the case as long as humans are humans, 5.0 will mean something more than a decimal point update, even if the only difference is a couple of comment fixes and a regression in the MM" (me)

h1d 8y ago

What is their problem for not simply following semver?

twtw 8y ago
What would be a breaking change for Linux that would justify a major version increment? Linux doesn't break userspace, and there are no stable internal APIs or ABIs.
- barbecue_sauce 8y ago
  Also worth nothing that semver is a relatively recent phenomenon, at least as far as being articulated ideologically.

Koshkin 8y ago

I remember the transition from 2.4 to 2.6 being rather painful, whereas upgrading from 4.x to 5.0 would, no doubt, be a breeze.