>> The promise just says that 4.0 *will* read 3.X and 4.1 might. > > > Yes, but while you have read it and interpreted it precisely, I suspect that > many people have misinterpreted it and assume that 4.0 will be the last > release to read 3.X. They may be incorrect, but I think it would still be > worth considering them and working to communicate this effectively. > > Essentially, what Eric said: it may be accurate, but it isn't *obvious*, at > least not to everyone.
So lets fix that. What is your preference of wording? Specially if we go to a single integer model? >> 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", but I > don't understand why 3.10 is worse than 3.9 was in that respect. I happen to > agree that we'll never change the "3", but I don't think this makes 3.10 a > particularly bad choice. It makes the "3." look more significant than it is and we will keep having discussions about what is "major" in the future. > I'm seeing pretty much zero support for continuing to have a major/minor > split. As such, I pretty strongly suggest that as a community we move to a > single integer that increments every (time based) release, and a .N that > increments with every patch release off of that branch. GCC and numerous > other projects work this way. I like this. And that is why I don't like the 3.10. It makes the major number seem more significant than it looks currently (we avoided changing it after all). Cheers, Rafael _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev