> On Jun 28, 2016, at 4:16 PM, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev > <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >>> The promise just says that 4.0 *will* read 3.X and 4.1 might. >> >> >> Yes, but while you have read it and interpreted it precisely, I suspect that >> many people have misinterpreted it and assume that 4.0 will be the last >> release to read 3.X. They may be incorrect, but I think it would still be >> worth considering them and working to communicate this effectively. >> >> Essentially, what Eric said: it may be accurate, but it isn't *obvious*, at >> least not to everyone. > > So lets fix that. What is your preference of wording? Specially if we > go to a single integer model?
Just writing this: "The current LLVM version support loading any bitcode since version 3.0” would be enough to me. I don’t feel the need to be explicit on a transition / deprecation period for now, we can elaborate when the time will come if really necessary. Alternatively, we can add something like: “Any change to this policy will be anounced two releases ahead (i.e. the release notes for version x anounces the compatibility changes for version x+2).”. — Mehdi > >>> I think I agree with Chris with 3.10 being the worst possible outcome. >> >> >> I'd be interested to understand why you or Chris thing 3.10 is the worst >> possible outcome. >> >> Chris has said it is because he thinks we'll never change the "3", but I >> don't understand why 3.10 is worse than 3.9 was in that respect. I happen to >> agree that we'll never change the "3", but I don't think this makes 3.10 a >> particularly bad choice. > > It makes the "3." look more significant than it is and we will keep > having discussions about what is "major" in the future. > >> I'm seeing pretty much zero support for continuing to have a major/minor >> split. As such, I pretty strongly suggest that as a community we move to a >> single integer that increments every (time based) release, and a .N that >> increments with every patch release off of that branch. GCC and numerous >> other projects work this way. > > I like this. And that is why I don't like the 3.10. It makes the major > number seem more significant than it looks currently (we avoided > changing it after all). > > Cheers, > Rafael > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
