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

[Robinson, Paul via lldb-dev]

| Note that 81 > 8, so those examples would still work.
Right, but also 81 > 9 so that example would not work, if you don't understand how the project does version numbers.

As different projects work by different rules, I guess the interpretation of version numbers by other tools would have to be project-dependent.  So, all that matters is that LLVM asserts what rule it will follow (and then actually follows it!).  The Wikipedia quote seems to suggest that whole-number tuples (e.g.: 3.8, 3.9, 3.10) are more common than decimal strings (e.g.: 3.8, 3.81, 3.9) and so we should not be afraid to use tuples.
--paulr

From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Adrian McCarthy via llvm-dev
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 10:03 AM
To: Bruce Hoult
Cc: llvm-dev; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org); LLDB Dev; cfe-dev; Robinson, Paul
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

>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<mailto: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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20160616/bf246162/attachment.html>