[lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)
Jim Rowan via lldb-dev
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jun 27 21:00:52 PDT 2016
On Jun 27, 2016, at 9:57 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I continue to think that 3.10 is the least defensible option out there.
I agree, given that there isn’t a concurrent agreement that we want to define and conform to a semantic versioning scheme — and that agreement not only hasn’t happened but seems quite unlikely.
> We have a time based release process with no mechanism or attempt to align behind “big” releases that could bring is to a 4.x number. You might as well call the release “10” at this point, since the "3.” will become archaic legacy that we can’t shed.
Yes, that does seem likely.
> I still don’t understand what “confusion” could be caused by going from 3.9 to 4.0.
I believe it is rooted in some folks expectation that the versions follow the semantic versioning paradigm. A numbering scheme that more directly indicated “time-based”, and that had less of a chance of being interpreted as conveying semantic content would indeed be less “confusing”.
> Could someone please elaborate on what the problem is that needs solving?
I think the real point, mostly unspoken, is this expectation for semantic versioning. Since that isn’t directly being discussed, I also don’t see a problem that needs solving.
jmr at codeaurora.org
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation
More information about the lldb-dev