On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Mehdi Amini via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > > On Jun 13, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Hans Wennborg <h...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Breaking this out into a separate thread since it's kind of a separate > > issue, and to make sure people see it. > > Thanks! > > > > > If you have opinions on this, please chime in. I'd like to collect as > > many arguments here as possible to make a good decision. The main > > contestants are 4.0 and 3.10, and I've seen folks being equally > > surprised by both. > > > > Brain-dump so far: > > > > - After LLVM 1.9 came 2.0, and after 2.9 came 3.0; naturally, 4.0 > > comes after 3.9. > > > > - There are special bitcode stability rules [1] concerning major > > version bumps. 2.0 and 3.0 had major IR changes, but since there > > aren't any this time, we should go to 3.10. > > > > - The bitcode stability rules allow for breakage with major versions, > > but it doesn't require it, so 4.0 is fine. > > (basically repeating my point of the other thread here) > Bumping the major version number without changing the bitcode > compatibility rule would mean dropping the current guarantee on this > aspect. I doubt we want to go this route without a good reason. > Completely agree with you here: unless we have a reason to break backwards compatibility at the bit code level for this release, I don't see a compelling reason to bump the major version number to 4.0. As such, I would expect that the next release would be 3.10. > -- > Mehdi > > > > > > - But maybe we want to save 4.0 for when we do have a significant IR > change? > > > > - We've never had an x.10 version before; maybe that would be > > confusing? Perhaps it's simply time to move on (like Linux 2.6.39 -> > > 3.0 and 3.19 -> 4.0). > > > > - Since we do time-based rather than feature-based releases, the major > > version number shouldn't mean anything special anyway (e.g. big IR > > changes or not), so 4.0? > > > > - Everyone knows that after 9 comes 10, so 3.10 it is. The version is > > a tuple after all. > > > > - Let's go for 4.0 now, and 5.0 after that. Then the "dot"-releases in > > between would correspond to minor version bumps, which would make > > sense (and catch up with GCC!). > > > > - It's just a number, no big deal; flip a coin or something. > > > > What do you think? > > > > - Hans > > > > > > [1]. > http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#ir-backwards-compatibility > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > -- Saleem Abdulrasool compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
