> -----Original Message----- > From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Tom > Stellard via cfe-dev > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 7:12 AM > To: Rafael Espíndola > Cc: llvm-dev; Release-testers; openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org); > LLDB Dev; cfe-dev > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for > testers > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 09:14:43AM -0400, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > > > The 4.1 release gives us the opportunity to drop support for 3.x > > > bitcode formats, so I don't think we should move to 4.x until we have > > > older bitcode features that we really want to drop. There should > > > probably be a separate discussion thread about this. > > > > It give the opportunity, not the obligation. Given that I think it is > > an independent issue and would suggest we just keep the revisions > > simple and switch trunk to 4.0. > > > > Hi Rafael, > > The main issue I see with automatically moving to 4.0, is that if a year > from now we decide we want to drop a bitcode feature, we can't really do > it unless we bump the major version again to 5.0. If we continue on > with 3.x, then we still have the flexibility to drop bitcode features > when we decide it's necessary. > > -Tom
+1. My understanding is that 2.9->3.0 came with some huge internal changes (overhaul of the type system, maybe? this slightly predates my involvement with LLVM so I'm not entirely sure) and warranted a major-version change regardless of the .9->.0 thing. I don't think 3.10 should be confusing to anyone, really. The version number is a tuple, not a string or a decimal fraction. --paulr > > > Cheers, > > Rafael > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-...@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
