> On Dec 5, 2016, at 12:07 PM, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev > <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Renato Golin <renato.go...@linaro.org > <mailto:renato.go...@linaro.org>> wrote: >> On 5 December 2016 at 19:56, Hans Wennborg <h...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> I'd like to avoid 4.1 because of the potential for confusion about >>> whether it's a major release (as it would have been under the old >>> scheme) or a patch release. >> >> But if the versioning scheme is different, users will have to >> understand what it means anyway. >> >> Until now we had a weird and very unique logic, and we're moving to a >> more sensible logic, because it's similar to what some other projects >> are doing. >> >> I can see as much confusion from 4.0.1 -> 5.0.0 than by having a 4.1 >> that used to be weird before. >> >> After a few releases everything will be clear anyway... I really don't >> want to make the foreseeable future weird again to avoid a potential >> misunderstanding for one or two releases. >> >> Let's just be brutally clear in all release communications and >> hopefully people will understand. >> >> >>> The alternative would be: >>> >>> 3.9.0 >>> 3.9.1 >>> 4.0.0 >>> 4.1.0 <-- Can't tell from the version number what kind of release this is. >> >> No, that has a redundant zero, too. >> >> The alternative is: >> >> 3.9.0 >> 3.9.1 >> 4.0 >> 4.1 >> 5.0 >> 5.1 > > I'm worried that users will, with some reason, think that the 4.1 and > 5.1 releases are the same kind as 2.1 and 3.1 :-/
+1, I haven’t seen yet the downside of keeping the minor to 0 and bumping only the patch number. — Mehdi
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
