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

[Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev]

> On Dec 5, 2016, at 12:07 PM, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org <mailto: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 :-/

+1, I haven’t seen yet the downside of keeping the minor to 0 and bumping only the patch number.

— 
Mehdi


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161205/f190a619/attachment.html>