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

[Aaron Ballman via llvm-dev]

Thank you for raising this question! I think 3.10 makes sense until we
have a strong enough breaking change (in anything, not just LLVM bit
code) to warrant bumping to 4.0.

~Aaron

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev
<cfe-dev at lists.llvm.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.
>
> 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?
>
> - 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
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev