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

[Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM Hal Finkel via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "LLDB Dev" <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
> > "openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org)" <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> > Cc: "r jordans" <r.jordans at tue.nl>, "Paul Robinson" <
> Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com>
> > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 6:54:19 PM
> > Subject: [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release]
> Release plan and call for testers)
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > - But maybe we want to save 4.0 for when we do have a significant IR
> > change?
>
> I think that this is the right approach, and we happen to have a natural
> forcing function here: opaque pointer types. I think we should increment
> the major version number when opaque pointer types are here, as it will be
> a major breaking change, and then we'll have a version 4.0. Until then,
> unless something else breaking comes up, 3.10 sounds fine to me.
>

+1, complete agreement.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160614/9ef9b48e/attachment.html>