[lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [Release-testers] [Openmp-dev] [4.0 Release] Schedule and call for testers

[Robinson, Paul via lldb-dev]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Michal
> Górny via cfe-dev
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 3:33 PM
> To: Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev
> Cc: llvm-dev; Release-testers; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org);
> cfe-dev
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [Openmp-dev] [4.0
> Release] Schedule and call for testers
> 
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 12:07:25 -0800
> Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
> wrote:
> > > On 5 December 2016 at 19:56, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote:
> > >> I'd like to avoid 4.1 because of the potential for confusion about
> > >> whether it's a major release (as it would have been under the old
> > >> scheme) or a patch release.
> > >
> > > But if the versioning scheme is different, users will have to
> > > understand what it means anyway.
> > >
> > > Until now we had a weird and very unique logic, and we're moving to a
> > > more sensible logic, because it's similar to what some other projects
> > > are doing.
> > >
> > > I can see as much confusion from 4.0.1 -> 5.0.0 than by having a 4.1
> > > that used to be weird before.
> > >
> > > After a few releases everything will be clear anyway... I really don't
> > > want to make the foreseeable future weird again to avoid a potential
> > > misunderstanding for one or two releases.
> > >
> > > Let's just be brutally clear in all release communications and
> > > hopefully people will understand.
> > >
> > >
> > >> The alternative would be:
> > >>
> > >> 3.9.0
> > >> 3.9.1
> > >> 4.0.0
> > >> 4.1.0 <-- Can't tell from the version number what kind of release
> this is.
> > >
> > > No, that has a redundant zero, too.
> > >
> > > The alternative is:
> > >
> > > 3.9.0
> > > 3.9.1
> > > 4.0
> > > 4.1
> > > 5.0
> > > 5.1
> >
> > I'm worried that users will, with some reason, think that the 4.1 and
> > 5.1 releases are the same kind as 2.1 and 3.1 :-/
> 
> Just do 4a, 4b, 4c ;-). Everyone will be as confused as possible ;-).

Back in the day, every version was identified as "Latest."
No possible confusion there!

I'm fine with "4.0.1" in keeping with the major.minor.patch convention,
given how the in-betweeners are really patch updates not minor versions.
--paulr

> 
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>