----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev" <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> > To: "Richard Smith" <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>, "Chris Lattner" <sa...@nondot.org>, > "openmp-dev > (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)" <openmp-...@lists.llvm.org>, "LLDB" > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" > <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>, "David Blaikie" <blai...@google.com>, "Paul > Robinson" <paul_robin...@playstation.sony.com> > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 3:38:06 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [Openmp-dev] What version comes > after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release > plan and call for testers) > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Richard Smith via lldb-dev > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> If 4 seems too confusing, and 40 seems too extreme, how about 10. > >> Seriously. It seems exactly as good as any other integer to start > >> counting > >> rationally, and won't confuse people by looking like a 4.0 > >> release. > > > > > > I think going to 10 or 40 is likely to be confusing, because > > there'll be two > > different ways to refer to the same version (people will say 3.10 > > when > > referring to version 10, or 38 when referring to version 3.8, > > respectively). > > This happened to Java in the version 1.6 / version 6 numbering > > transition. > > > > In order to preserve numbering continuity and minimize confusion, > > if we go > > from three-component versions (major.minor.patch) to two-component > > versions > > (major.patch), I would suggest we go from x.y.z to x+1.0. (This is > > also > > consistent with how GCC handled the transition.) > > I haven't followed how this worked out for GCC, but I worry that if > we > go from 3.9.0 to 4.0 with the intention of doing 5.0 next, users will > get confused when we ship 4.1 as a "dot" release instead of a major > release like we've used to. > > There's also the question of how to practically go from a 3-tuple to > a > 2-tuple. Should we drop it from the version string and dir names in > Clang? Do we drop __clang_patchlevel__ or just leave it at zero? I > see > GCC 5.4 is actually versioned as 5.4.0 so maybe that'd be the way to > do it?
I think that the directory names should match the version string. Both are user-facing. For the macros, I'd rather set the minor version to 0, since "patch level" really is the correct descriptive name for the final digit in our stable releases. -Hal > > Cheers, > Hans > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > -- Hal Finkel Assistant Computational Scientist Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
