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

[Reid Kleckner via cfe-dev]

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.

Sent from phone
On Jun 24, 2016 4:42 PM, "Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev" <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Hans Wennborg <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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Thanks everyone for chiming in.
>
> Please correct me if I misrepresent your opinion here, but I need to
> try and summarize this thread for my own sanity:
>
> The thread started out with lots of support for 3.10, the reasoning
> being roughly that we shouldn't bump the major version number unless
> we want to signify major change (Mehdi, Hal, Blaikie, Saleem,
> Chandler, Anton, Eric, Aaron, Sean, Vikram).
>
> Richard suggested that since we do time-based rather than
> feature-based releases, the distinction between a release with or
> without major changes is arbitrary, and we should move to a scheme
> where we update the major version number on each release (4.0, 5.0,
> etc.) with minor releases in between (4.1, 5.1, ..).
>
> Chris advocated for "keep adding 0.1 to each major release" (in the
> decimal sense), i.e. 3.9, 4.0, 4.1, etc. I haven't seen anyone else
> suggest this. "I do not think it is reasonable at all to go to '3.10'
> after '3.9', because we will never get to '4.0'."
>
> Chris then expressed support for alternatively just incrementing the
> major version each time, as Richard suggested, but starting at 40.
>
> Rafael expressed support for the above, but starting at 4.0: "It is
> simply not worth the time to try to figure out what is 'major' in a
> project with so many different uses."
>
> Chandler said he didn't like Chris's "keep adding 0.1 to each major
> release" scheme: "we shouldn't just go from 3.9 to 4.0 because of some
> decimal correspondence", and said he was open to either going to 3.10
> with the current major/minor split, or if we don't want that, use
> Richard's suggestion.
>
> Michael pointed out that if we do change the numbering scheme,
> changing the binary compatibility guarantee to something time-based
> isn't equivalent to what we currently have.
>
>
>
> So, it seems we're at an impasse with several folks in favour of 3.10,
> Chris speaking out strongly against it, and Richard's option which has
> some traction and which no one's disagreed with so far, but which
> would be a bigger change.
>
> I'll have a think about this over the weekend.
>
> Cheers,
> Hans
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20160626/4e4ccd5f/attachment.html>