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

[Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via Openmp-dev
> <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think I agree with Chris with 3.10 being the worst possible outcome.
>
>
> I'd be interested to understand why you or Chris thing 3.10 is the worst
> possible outcome.
>
> Chris has said it is because he thinks we'll never change the "3”,
>
>
> Yes, that is one reason.
>
> but I don't understand why 3.10 is worse than 3.9 was in that respect.
>
>
> Because it breaks from the established pattern we have, and means that we
> never get to 4.
>
> I happen to agree that we'll never change the "3", but I don't think this
> makes 3.10 a particularly bad choice.
>
>
> If you agree that we’ll never change the 3, then you are staying that you
> believe it is ok for the version number to be meaningless.  In that case, I
> can’t see why you’d object to a policy change.
>
> I believe that the version number is important.  Which is why I care so much
> about it :-)
>
> I think/hope we can agree that “Bitcode compatibility” is an obsolete notion
> to encode into the version number - from a historical perspective, we only
> used that as rationale because it happened to align well for the 1.9 to 2.0
> conversion and then used it as an excuse to shed some legacy in the 3.0
> timeframe.
>
> Given that, and given that we have a time based release, we should either
> leave the versioning alone (3.9/4.0/4.1) or switch to a semantic versioning
> model 3.9/4.0/5.0/6.0 or 3.9/40/41/42).

Since there seems to be some kind of rough consensus forming around
the idea of moving towards a model with x.y version numbers where we
increment x every six months and y for the "dot" releases in between,
let's take it to a code review:

http://reviews.llvm.org/D21821

What angles am I missing? I'm sure this can break the world in
interesting ways. (It looks like Clang's cmake config is already set
up for this though, by checking CLANG_HAS_VERSION_PATCHLEVEL).

 - Hans