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

[Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev]

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev
<cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:01 AM Xinliang David Li via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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 :)
>
>
> Except that we'll have to keep dealing with people who are confused why we
> have two version numbers but they don't mean anything. That's why I think if
> we don't want major/minor going forward, we should remove the '.' regardless
> of what number we pick.

We can't remove the '.' completely though, as we need it for Tom's
stable releases.

That's what concerns me about going to the scheme Richard and Rafael
suggested, of bumping the major version each time: we'd release 4.0,
and would Tom's dot-release then be 4.1? That would be confusing to
those who are used to our current scheme. Chris suggested going
straight to 40 to avoid this, but that also seems a bit extreme.

Thanks,
Hans


>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Reid Kleckner via cfe-dev
>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>