On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 07/23/14 10:20, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> I am also fine with it. >> >> I think that if anybody has strong objections, now is the time to make >> them. Otherwise I think we should go with this plan. >> >> To me, the basic summary of the idea is that there is no clear reason >> to ever change the GCC major version number. There were real >> objections to changing it when we went from 3 to 4. There will be >> real objections for any future change from 4 to 5. At the same time, >> we face the fact that going from 4.9 to 4.10 will break some people's >> existing scripts, as is also true of any other decision we can make. >> >> Given that there is no clear reason to ever change the major version >> number, making that change will not convey any useful information to >> our users. So let's just drop the major version number. Once we've >> made that decision, then the next release (in 2015) naturally becomes >> 5.0, the release after that (in 2016) becomes 6.0, etc. > > Agreed. It's not 100% perfect, but, IMHO, it's significantly better than > what we're doing now and better than the various alternatives that have been > proposed.
If a native speaker can cook something up for the head of gcc-5/changes.html about this change that would be nice. (yes, gcc-5/, not gcc-5.0/ ...) Richard. > Jeff
