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

[Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev]

> On 2016-Jun-28, at 16:22, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> 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).

For one thing, I can't find the patch on the mailing list ;).  I'm guessing
you missed adding llvm-commits as a subscriber?