On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via Openmp-dev > <openmp-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> 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”, > > > Yes, that is one reason. > > but I don't understand why 3.10 is worse than 3.9 was in that respect. > > > Because it breaks from the established pattern we have, and means that we > never get to 4. > > I happen to agree that we'll never change the "3", but I don't think this > makes 3.10 a particularly bad choice. > > > If you agree that we’ll never change the 3, then you are staying that you > believe it is ok for the version number to be meaningless. In that case, I > can’t see why you’d object to a policy change. > > I believe that the version number is important. Which is why I care so much > about it :-) > > I think/hope we can agree that “Bitcode compatibility” is an obsolete notion > to encode into the version number - from a historical perspective, we only > used that as rationale because it happened to align well for the 1.9 to 2.0 > conversion and then used it as an excuse to shed some legacy in the 3.0 > timeframe. > > Given that, and given that we have a time based release, we should either > leave the versioning alone (3.9/4.0/4.1) or switch to a semantic versioning > model 3.9/4.0/5.0/6.0 or 3.9/40/41/42).
Since there seems to be some kind of rough consensus forming around the idea of moving towards a model with x.y version numbers where we increment x every six months and y for the "dot" releases in between, let's take it to a code review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21821 What angles am I missing? I'm sure this can break the world in interesting ways. (It looks like Clang's cmake config is already set up for this though, by checking CLANG_HAS_VERSION_PATCHLEVEL). - Hans _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
