I also support Chris's position of 4.0, 4.1 etc. I don't think "majorness" is that important, and we can sort out the bit code compatibility story some other way.
Sent from phone On Jun 24, 2016 4:42 PM, "Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev" < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, 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. > > > > 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. > > Thanks everyone for chiming in. > > Please correct me if I misrepresent your opinion here, but I need to > try and summarize this thread for my own sanity: > > The thread started out with lots of support for 3.10, the reasoning > being roughly that we shouldn't bump the major version number unless > we want to signify major change (Mehdi, Hal, Blaikie, Saleem, > Chandler, Anton, Eric, Aaron, Sean, Vikram). > > Richard suggested that since we do time-based rather than > feature-based releases, the distinction between a release with or > without major changes is arbitrary, and we should move to a scheme > where we update the major version number on each release (4.0, 5.0, > etc.) with minor releases in between (4.1, 5.1, ..). > > Chris advocated for "keep adding 0.1 to each major release" (in the > decimal sense), i.e. 3.9, 4.0, 4.1, etc. I haven't seen anyone else > suggest this. "I do not think it is reasonable at all to go to '3.10' > after '3.9', because we will never get to '4.0'." > > Chris then expressed support for alternatively just incrementing the > major version each time, as Richard suggested, but starting at 40. > > Rafael expressed support for the above, but starting at 4.0: "It is > simply not worth the time to try to figure out what is 'major' in a > project with so many different uses." > > Chandler said he didn't like Chris's "keep adding 0.1 to each major > release" scheme: "we shouldn't just go from 3.9 to 4.0 because of some > decimal correspondence", and said he was open to either going to 3.10 > with the current major/minor split, or if we don't want that, use > Richard's suggestion. > > Michael pointed out that if we do change the numbering scheme, > changing the binary compatibility guarantee to something time-based > isn't equivalent to what we currently have. > > > > So, it seems we're at an impasse with several folks in favour of 3.10, > Chris speaking out strongly against it, and Richard's option which has > some traction and which no one's disagreed with so far, but which > would be a bigger change. > > I'll have a think about this over the weekend. > > Cheers, > Hans > _______________________________________________ > 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
