[llvm-dev] [Openmp-dev] [cfe-dev] [lldb-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)
Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Jun 28 13:16:50 PDT 2016
>> 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?
>> 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).
More information about the llvm-dev