On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:38 PM Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Chris Lattner <clatt...@apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev < > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> That's what concerns me about going to the scheme Richard and Rafael > >> suggested, of bumping the major version each time: we'd release 4.0, > >> and would Tom's dot-release then be 4.1? That would be confusing to > >> those who are used to our current scheme. Chris suggested going > >> straight to 40 to avoid this, but that also seems a bit extreme. > > > > Extreme how? What do you mean by “extreme"? > > Sorry, that might have been a poor choice of wording. > > I just meant that change seems to have a much greater magnitude than > the other proposals. I realize that's sort of the point, to make the > change clear to users, but instinctively it feels wrong -- like > cheating by skipping 36 versions :-) > Eh, if we're switching to a completely unrelated versioning scheme, it doesn't seem completely unreasonable. We could also count how many time-based releases we have had and use that... :: shrug :: I think counting from 4 or counting from 40 are all fine ways to number releases. > > Thanks, > Hans > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
