I also believe this is the simplest versioning scheme*. It eliminates all future debates on this topic (e.g, when to bump major version etc) and solves the problem once and for all -- which is another plus :)
*) similar suggestions a) start from 4, increase by 1; b) start from 40, increase by 1. Date based scheme is also a variant of it. David On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Reid Kleckner via cfe-dev < cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
