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

Sun Jun 26 13:20:20 PDT 2016

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.

>
> *) similar suggestions a) start from 4, increase by 1; b) start from 40,
> increase by 1.   Date based scheme is also a variant of it.
>
> David
>
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20160626/67734d6d/attachment.html>