I've split the version discussion off into a new thread ("What version
comes after 3.9?") and CC'd everyone discussing it here so far.On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Jun 13, 2016, at 6:14 AM, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev >> <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> 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. > > I don't see this way: it means that we stop supporting compatibility, even if > we don't aggressively remove the auto-upgradecode. It looks like an important > decision and we should not take it lightly. > > -- > Mehdi > > >> Given that I think it is >> an independent issue and would suggest we just keep the revisions >> simple and switch trunk to 4.0. >> >> Cheers, >> Rafael >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
