[cfe-dev] [lldb-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

[Mehdi Amini via cfe-dev]

> On Jun 13, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Mehdi Amini via lldb-dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> 
> > On Jun 13, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org <mailto:hans at chromium.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Breaking this out into a separate thread since it's kind of a separate
> > issue, and to make sure people see it.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> >
> > If you have opinions on this, please chime in. I'd like to collect as
> > many arguments here as possible to make a good decision. The main
> > contestants are 4.0 and 3.10, and I've seen folks being equally
> > surprised by both.
> >
> > Brain-dump so far:
> >
> > - After LLVM 1.9 came 2.0, and after 2.9 came 3.0; naturally, 4.0
> > comes after 3.9.
> >
> > - There are special bitcode stability rules [1] concerning major
> > version bumps. 2.0 and 3.0 had major IR changes, but since there
> > aren't any this time, we should go to 3.10.
> >
> > - The bitcode stability rules allow for breakage with major versions,
> > but it doesn't require it, so 4.0 is fine.
> 
> (basically repeating my point of the other thread here)
> Bumping the major version number without changing the bitcode compatibility rule would mean dropping the current guarantee on this aspect. I doubt we want to go this route without a good reason.
> 
> Completely agree with you here: unless we have a reason to break backwards compatibility at the bit code level for this release, I don't see a compelling reason to bump the major version number to 4.0.  As such, I would expect that the next release would be 3.10.

To clarify my point: I don't have a particular opinion about bumping the major number for whatever other reason than breaking the compatibility, but I'd probably suggest that we rewrite the compatibility policy to say something like "The current LLVM version support loading any bitcode since version 3.0".


-- 
Mehdi

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20160613/e6bc472c/attachment.html>