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

[Saleem Abdulrasool via llvm-dev]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Mehdi Amini via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

>
> > On 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.
>
> Thanks!
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Brain-dump so far:
> >
> > - After LLVM 1.9 came 2.0, and after 2.9 came 3.0; naturally, 4.0
> > comes after 3.9.
> >
> > - There are special bitcode stability rules [1] concerning major
> > version bumps. 2.0 and 3.0 had major IR changes, but since there
> > aren't any this time, we should go to 3.10.
> >
> > - The bitcode stability rules allow for breakage with major versions,
> > but it doesn't require it, so 4.0 is fine.
>
> (basically repeating my point of the other thread here)
> Bumping the major version number without changing the bitcode
> compatibility rule would mean dropping the current guarantee on this
> aspect. I doubt we want to go this route without a good reason.
>

Completely agree with you here: unless we have a reason to break backwards
compatibility at the bit code level for this release, I don't see a
compelling reason to bump the major version number to 4.0.  As such, I
would expect that the next release would be 3.10.


> --
> Mehdi
>
>
> >
> > - But maybe we want to save 4.0 for when we do have a significant IR
> change?
> >
> > - We've never had an x.10 version before; maybe that would be
> > confusing? Perhaps it's simply time to move on (like Linux 2.6.39 ->
> > 3.0 and 3.19 -> 4.0).
> >
> > - Since we do time-based rather than feature-based releases, the major
> > version number shouldn't mean anything special anyway (e.g. big IR
> > changes or not), so 4.0?
> >
> > - Everyone knows that after 9 comes 10, so 3.10 it is. The version is
> > a tuple after all.
> >
> > - Let's go for 4.0 now, and 5.0 after that. Then the "dot"-releases in
> > between would correspond to minor version bumps, which would make
> > sense (and catch up with GCC!).
> >
> > - It's just a number, no big deal; flip a coin or something.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > - Hans
> >
> >
> > [1].
> http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#ir-backwards-compatibility
>
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>



-- 
Saleem Abdulrasool
compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160613/d50365f4/attachment.html>