[lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)
Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jun 27 08:22:45 PDT 2016
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool
<compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitri Gribenko via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > Richard suggested that since we do time-based rather than
>> > feature-based releases, the distinction between a release with or
>> > without major changes is arbitrary, and we should move to a scheme
>> > where we update the major version number on each release (4.0, 5.0,
>> > etc.) with minor releases in between (4.1, 5.1, ..).
>> If we are truly committed to doing time-based releases, we can switch
>> to time-based version numbers, Year.Month, for example, if we were to
>> release in June it would be 16.06. We can use an extra digit for
>> minor releases.
> This would mirror other projects doing the same, so there is precedent.
> Although radically different from the current model, I think it has some
> merit. When people report bugs with 3.1, its actually hard to estimate how
> it is (roughly estimating it via ~6mo release cycle does really work). This
> would certainly make it easier.
> Its a good alternative though it does mean that we no longer have the
> ability to indicate a major shift. However as Chris already pointed out,
> LLVM is much more stable these days and perhaps worrying about major shifts
> which are unseen is looking for a problem to solve rather than solving a
> problem at hand.
> +1 on this suggestion.
I'm not a fan of this idea. While I can see the reasoning behind it, I
think we would end up with pretty confusing-looking version numbers. I
suppose it's too radically a departure from the usual schemes for my
More information about the lldb-dev