Prev: kernel upgrade - touchpad unexpected behaviour
Next: PHP with unixODBC support
From: Mike Jones on 13 May 2010 19:53
Responding to Richard Herbert:

> On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:37:27 +0000, Mike Jones wrote:
>
>> 12.2 has been pretty much rock solid for me, and even numbers are
>> usually better than odd ones when it comes to Linux version numbers. ;)
>
> Which "odd" version of Linux would you be referring to? Or are you just
> saying that even-numbered versions of anything are usually better than
> odd ones? I'm not THAT supertitious, but I gotta admit it took me a
> long time to get around from upgrading Slackware 12.2 to 13.0. ;-)


As I understand it, even numbers denote STABLE and odd numbers WIP.

--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
*=( For all your UK news needs.
From: Michael Black on 13 May 2010 22:14
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Mike Jones wrote:

> Responding to Richard Herbert:
>
>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:37:27 +0000, Mike Jones wrote:
>>
>>> 12.2 has been pretty much rock solid for me, and even numbers are
>>> usually better than odd ones when it comes to Linux version numbers. ;)
>>
>> Which "odd" version of Linux would you be referring to? Or are you just
>> saying that even-numbered versions of anything are usually better than
>> odd ones? I'm not THAT supertitious, but I gotta admit it took me a
>> long time to get around from upgrading Slackware 12.2 to 13.0. ;-)
>
>
> As I understand it, even numbers denote STABLE and odd numbers WIP.
>
I'm not sure that quite applies. When it goes from 12 to 13, that seems
indicative of big changes, while the others are incremental changes.

Given that, a 12.0 or 13.0 may be rougher since the leap is greater.
A 12.1 will come "relatively" soon, to incorporate the issues
with the big leap to 12.0.

If you look at the Slackware releases, it's been 11 years since there
were lots of incremental releases between the major releases, which
probably reflects a stability in Slackware, or at least a stability
in knowing when to issue releases. Once Slackware 7.0 came along,
much of the time it's alternated between a major release and a minor
release, and even that isn't a real trend, since
9.0 March 2003
9.1 Sept. 2003
10.0 June 2004
10.1 Feb 2005
10.2 Sept 2005
11.0 Oct 2006
12.0 July 2007
12.1 May 2008
12.2 Dec 2008
13.0 Aug 2009
13.X sometime soon

Some distributions have a fixed release cycle (or maybe try to
adhere to it?), but obviously Slackware doesn't.

Michael

From: Henrik Carlqvist on 14 May 2010 06:46
Mike Jones <luck(a)dasteem.invalid> wrote:
> As I understand it, even numbers denote STABLE and odd numbers WIP.

That used to be true for the Linux kernel a few years back, but as far as
I know that does not apply to Slackware versions.

Example:
Linux 2.3.43 released 10 Feb 2000 was a development version while
Linux 2.2.14 released 4 Jan 2000 was the stable Linux version
Stable Linux 2.4.0 was released 4 Jan 2001, since then there have been
more work on the 2.3 branch, but the old stable branch 2.2 got it latest
version 2.2.26 as late as 24 Feb 2004.

When Linux 2.6 was released this stable/development numbering was
abandoned and replaced with a four number system which does not say so
much about stability like Linux 2.6.21.5 used in Slackware 12.0.

regards Henrik
--
The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
hc3(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
root(a)localhost postmaster(a)localhost

From: Mike Jones on 14 May 2010 09:46
Responding to Henrik Carlqvist:

> Mike Jones <luck(a)dasteem.invalid> wrote:
>> As I understand it, even numbers denote STABLE and odd numbers WIP.
>
> That used to be true for the Linux kernel a few years back, but as far
> as I know that does not apply to Slackware versions.
>
> Example:
> Linux 2.3.43 released 10 Feb 2000 was a development version while Linux
> 2.2.14 released 4 Jan 2000 was the stable Linux version Stable Linux
> 2.4.0 was released 4 Jan 2001, since then there have been more work on
> the 2.3 branch, but the old stable branch 2.2 got it latest version
> 2.2.26 as late as 24 Feb 2004.
>
> When Linux 2.6 was released this stable/development numbering was
> abandoned and replaced with a four number system which does not say so
> much about stability like Linux 2.6.21.5 used in Slackware 12.0.
>
> regards Henrik


Ah. Coincidence regarding XX.1 and XX.2 Slackware releases then. ;)

--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
*=( For all your UK news needs.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: kernel upgrade - touchpad unexpected behaviour
Next: PHP with unixODBC support