On Jun 27, 2016, at 9:57 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > I continue to think that 3.10 is the least defensible option out there. I agree, given that there isn’t a concurrent agreement that we want to define and conform to a semantic versioning scheme — and that agreement not only hasn’t happened but seems quite unlikely. > We have a time based release process with no mechanism or attempt to align > behind “big” releases that could bring is to a 4.x number. You might as well > call the release “10” at this point, since the "3.” will become archaic > legacy that we can’t shed. Yes, that does seem likely. > I still don’t understand what “confusion” could be caused by going from 3.9 > to 4.0. I believe it is rooted in some folks expectation that the versions follow the semantic versioning paradigm. A numbering scheme that more directly indicated “time-based”, and that had less of a chance of being interpreted as conveying semantic content would indeed be less “confusing”. > Could someone please elaborate on what the problem is that needs solving? I think the real point, mostly unspoken, is this expectation for semantic versioning. Since that isn’t directly being discussed, I also don’t see a problem that needs solving. Jim Rowan j...@codeaurora.org Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
