What's going on here?

What's going on here?

Post by Dr. Un » Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:00:00



What's the deal here?  2.0.36 in the Stable corner, 2.1.132 in the
Development corner.  Now 2.2.0 in the Development corner.  Supposedly the
even number after the 1st number means it's stable.  Does this mean that
2.2.0 is stable, or will it be the new stable after a million patches?  As
you can see, I am totally clueless about this situation.  Can I have someone
get me a drink to clear things up?

Thanks.

 
 
 

What's going on here?

Post by Paul Flinder » Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:00:00



> What's the deal here?  2.0.36 in the Stable corner, 2.1.132 in the
> Development corner.  Now 2.2.0 in the Development corner.  Supposedly the
> even number after the 1st number means it's stable.  Does this mean that
> 2.2.0 is stable, or will it be the new stable after a million patches?  As
> you can see, I am totally clueless about this situation.  Can I have someone
> get me a drink to clear things up?

It's probably more accurate to say that 2.<even number>.x is the "release"
version and 2.<odd number>.x is the development version.  2.2 is in a
pre-release phase at the moment, not quite development, but not quite full
release either.

After release bugs get fixed (no program is perfect and it's likely 2.2.0
will have quite a few bugs left) and a few "conservative" features get
added (such as new device drivers) - hence the incrementing minor number on
the "stable" version. 2.2.0 won't be as stable as 2.0.36 because more time
has been spent fixing the bugs in the latter and the former hasn't been run
on nearly as many systems but for the majority of people it should work
without problems.

You should note that _all_ operating system vendors release bug fixes
although some choose not to reflect it in an official version number
change.  For example I could quite easily claim to be running NT 4.4 (NT 4
with service pack 4) at the moment.  Linux, in being more responsive to
problems, tends to run up the minor number a little faster but that's all.

The other thing that happens when a version is released is that a new
development thread is started with a new odd number. The incrementing minor
number here just reflects how often Linus decides to package up the current
state of his version and offer it to the world. There's no guarentee that
one of these _compiles_ much less works as an OS kernel.

 
 
 

What's going on here?

Post by Mark Tranchan » Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:00:00


It's not 2.2.0, it's 2.2.0-pre. 2.2.0 will be "stable".

Mark.


> What's the deal here?  2.0.36 in the Stable corner, 2.1.132 in the
> Development corner.  Now 2.2.0 in the Development corner.  Supposedly the
> even number after the 1st number means it's stable.  Does this mean that
> 2.2.0 is stable, or will it be the new stable after a million patches?  As
> you can see, I am totally clueless about this situation.  Can I have someone
> get me a drink to clear things up?

> Thanks.

 
 
 

What's going on here?

Post by Peter Samuels » Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:00:00



Quote:> What's the deal here?  2.0.36 in the Stable corner, 2.1.132 in the
> Development corner.  Now 2.2.0 in the Development corner.  Supposedly
> the even number after the 1st number means it's stable.  Does this
> mean that 2.2.0 is stable, or will it be the new stable after a
> million patches?

You're almost right.  The patchlevel (the second digit) is odd for
"development" kernels and even for "stable" kernels, so 2.2.x will be
considered the new stable series.

However, 2.2.0 has NOT been released yet.  The latest version as of
this writing is 2.2.0pre7, which could be considered the seventh beta
release.  As a beta, it is still considered "development".  For an
unofficial list of what is considered beta about it, read
http://roadrunner.swansea.linux.org.uk/jobs.shtml .  2.2.0 will be
released when Linus is satisfied that most or all of the showstopper
bugs have been dealt with.

Actually, when 2.2.0 comes out, there will be two stable releases.
Alan Cox has stated that at least for awhile he will continue to
maintain the 2.0.x branch, so that people who do not want to be forced
to upgrade to 2.2.x right away can still get important bugs fixed.

--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>