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

Thu Jun 16 10:02:52 PDT 2016

>Version numbers aren't strings, and they aren't floating point numbers,
they are a series of integers separated by dots. I can't think of a project
where interpreting version numbers that way won't work.

TeX (asymptotically approaches pi), METAFONT (asymptotically approaches e),
Opera (decimal number).

Sayeth Wikipedia
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Incrementing_sequences>:

> Most free and open-source software packages, including MediaWiki, treat
> versions as a series of individual numbers, separated by periods, with a
> progression such as 1.7.0, 1.8.0, 1.8.1, 1.9.0, 1.10.0, 1.11.0, 1.11.1,
> 1.11.2, and so on. On the other hand, some software packages identify
> releases by decimal numbers: 1.7, 1.8, 1.81, 1.82, 1.9, etc.

Note that 81 > 8, so those examples would still work.  But 3.10 is easy to
misinterpret as 3.1.

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Bruce Hoult via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Bug in cmake (or more likely the makefile?), pure and simple. Version
> numbers aren't strings, and they aren't floating point numbers, they are a
> series of integers separated by dots. I can't think of a project where
> interpreting version numbers that way won't work.
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Cristianno Martins via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello there,
>>
>> First, I would like to say that I don't have any strong opinions on this
>> matter: as mostly an user of LLVM, my basic concern is for me to be able to
>> identify which version is the newest and configure it as easily as
>> possible. That being said, I have a question about LLVM's versioning
>> strategy: is it possible for other tools (including the ones LLVM depend
>> on) to become broke or annoyingly buggy just because a bad versioning
>> scheme was put in place?
>>
>> Just to give some context to this question, I've been using OS X for a
>> while, and I confess I was pretty annoyed when OS X 10.9 was followed by OS
>> X 10.10. Not at first, no: I didn't realize this would have any impact on
>> my workspace until I had to compile some code, and CMake kept stopping just
>> because it recognized that I was using an older version of the OS (emphasis
>> on *older*). It is funny when you realize that 10.10 should actually be
>> interpreted as less than 10.9, and CMake was falling for it, which was a
>> wrong behavior of the tool, I admit, but the weird OS versioning scheme was
>> the main cause of this issue. Of course this problem can be easily arranged
>> by setting up some extra environment variables to tell CMake to target OS X
>> 10.9 instead, but that was a very irritating behavior and only happened
>> because a bunch of people (from CMake, and, then, from OS X's development
>> team) thought comparing versions directly shouldn't be a problem. Besides,
>> every one of these small details end up being some extra steps a new user
>> need to follow to be able to use a tool, some of which could be easily
>> avoided.
>>
>> I confess I didn't look into this matter after that, and still today, on
>> OS X 10.11, I'm targeting version 10.9 on all my CMake runs on OS X --
>> thus, I don't know if this bug was fixed or not. However, as I'm starting
>> to see a very similar pattern happening with LLVM on this thread, and I
>> thought I could contribute with the discussion: did someone check if naming
>> the next version "3.10" would have any impact on a production system?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cristianno Martins
>> <cristiannomartins at hotmail.com>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Eric Christopher via cfe-dev <
>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:43 AM Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev <
>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM Hal Finkel via lldb-dev <
>>>>> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> > From: "Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>>>>> > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" <
>>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "LLDB Dev" <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
>>>>>> > "openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org)" <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Cc: "r jordans" <r.jordans at tue.nl>, "Paul Robinson" <
>>>>>> Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com>
>>>>>> > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 6:54:19 PM
>>>>>> > Subject: [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9
>>>>>> Release] Release plan and call for testers)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Breaking this out into a separate thread since it's kind of a
>>>>>> > separate
>>>>>> > issue, and to make sure people see it.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > 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.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > - But maybe we want to save 4.0 for when we do have a significant IR
>>>>>> > change?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that this is the right approach, and we happen to have a
>>>>>> natural forcing function here: opaque pointer types. I think we should
>>>>>> increment the major version number when opaque pointer types are here, as
>>>>>> it will be a major breaking change, and then we'll have a version 4.0.
>>>>>> Until then, unless something else breaking comes up, 3.10 sounds fine to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +1, complete agreement.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While I'm not sure opaque pointer types are going to increment versions
>>>> I'm also in agreement that 3.10 is the right way to go.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> -- Sean Silva
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20160616/945144ea/attachment.html>