On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitri Gribenko via cfe-dev <
cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev
> <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > Richard suggested that since we do time-based rather than
> > feature-based releases, the distinction between a release with or
> > without major changes is arbitrary, and we should move to a scheme
> > where we update the major version number on each release (4.0, 5.0,
> > etc.) with minor releases in between (4.1, 5.1, ..).
>
> If we are truly committed to doing time-based releases, we can switch
> to time-based version numbers, Year.Month, for example, if we were to
> release in June it would be 16.06. We can use an extra digit for
> minor releases.
>
This would mirror other projects doing the same, so there is precedent.
Although radically different from the current model, I think it has some
merit. When people report bugs with 3.1, its actually hard to estimate how
it is (roughly estimating it via ~6mo release cycle does really work).
This would certainly make it easier.
Its a good alternative though it does mean that we no longer have the
ability to indicate a major shift. However as Chris already pointed out,
LLVM is much more stable these days and perhaps worrying about major shifts
which are unseen is looking for a problem to solve rather than solving a
problem at hand.
+1 on this suggestion.
> Dmitri
>
> --
> main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if
> (j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <griboz...@gmail.com>*/
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-...@lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
--
Saleem Abdulrasool
compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
