On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:01 AM Xinliang David Li via cfe-dev < cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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 :) > Except that we'll have to keep dealing with people who are confused why we have two version numbers but they don't mean anything. That's why I think if we don't want major/minor going forward, we should remove the '.' regardless of what number we pick. > > *) 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 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
