<div dir="ltr">I also believe this is the simplest versioning scheme*. It eliminates all future debates on this topic (e.g, when to bump major version etc) and solves the problem once and for all -- which is another plus :)<div><br></div><div>*) similar suggestions a) start from 4, increase by 1; b) start from 40, increase by 1. Date based scheme is also a variant of it.</div><div><br></div><div>David</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Reid Kleckner via cfe-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">I also support Chris's position of 4.0, 4.1 etc. I don't think "majorness" is that important, and we can sort out the bit code compatibility story some other way.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from phone</p><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jun 24, 2016 4:42 PM, "Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev" <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Hans Wennborg <<a href="mailto:hans@chromium.org" target="_blank">hans@chromium.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> Breaking this out into a separate thread since it's kind of a separate<br>
> issue, and to make sure people see it.<br>
><br>
> If you have opinions on this, please chime in. I'd like to collect as<br>
> many arguments here as possible to make a good decision. The main<br>
> contestants are 4.0 and 3.10, and I've seen folks being equally<br>
> surprised by both.<br>
<br>
Thanks everyone for chiming in.<br>
<br>
Please correct me if I misrepresent your opinion here, but I need to<br>
try and summarize this thread for my own sanity:<br>
<br>
The thread started out with lots of support for 3.10, the reasoning<br>
being roughly that we shouldn't bump the major version number unless<br>
we want to signify major change (Mehdi, Hal, Blaikie, Saleem,<br>
Chandler, Anton, Eric, Aaron, Sean, Vikram).<br>
<br>
Richard suggested that since we do time-based rather than<br>
feature-based releases, the distinction between a release with or<br>
without major changes is arbitrary, and we should move to a scheme<br>
where we update the major version number on each release (4.0, 5.0,<br>
etc.) with minor releases in between (4.1, 5.1, ..).<br>
<br>
Chris advocated for "keep adding 0.1 to each major release" (in the<br>
decimal sense), i.e. 3.9, 4.0, 4.1, etc. I haven't seen anyone else<br>
suggest this. "I do not think it is reasonable at all to go to '3.10'<br>
after '3.9', because we will never get to '4.0'."<br>
<br>
Chris then expressed support for alternatively just incrementing the<br>
major version each time, as Richard suggested, but starting at 40.<br>
<br>
Rafael expressed support for the above, but starting at 4.0: "It is<br>
simply not worth the time to try to figure out what is 'major' in a<br>
project with so many different uses."<br>
<br>
Chandler said he didn't like Chris's "keep adding 0.1 to each major<br>
release" scheme: "we shouldn't just go from 3.9 to 4.0 because of some<br>
decimal correspondence", and said he was open to either going to 3.10<br>
with the current major/minor split, or if we don't want that, use<br>
Richard's suggestion.<br>
<br>
Michael pointed out that if we do change the numbering scheme,<br>
changing the binary compatibility guarantee to something time-based<br>
isn't equivalent to what we currently have.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
So, it seems we're at an impasse with several folks in favour of 3.10,<br>
Chris speaking out strongly against it, and Richard's option which has<br>
some traction and which no one's disagreed with so far, but which<br>
would be a bigger change.<br>
<br>
I'll have a think about this over the weekend.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Hans<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
cfe-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>