> On 2016-Jun-28, at 13:17, Richard Smith via lldb-dev > <lldb-dev@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. > > Personally: I think it would be a bad outcome, because if we go to 3.10, I do > not see when we would ever transition to 4.0. What change would be "large > enough" to classify as a new major version of all of LLVM? Given that we are > (presumably) going to have a "sliding window" support story for LLVM IR > changes, and even LLVM IR changes are irrelevant to a significant number of > LLVM subprojects (all of which share the same versioning scheme), it's not > clear to me what would justify this. > >> 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. > > We've historically gone from x.9 to x+1.0, so this sets precedent, and we > seem to have the energy and motivation to discuss and possibly change our > version numbering scheme right now. For me, it's just a question of "if not > now, then when?". > >> 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 actually don't care at all what the number is: 4 or 40 seem fine. >> >> If 4 seems too confusing, and 40 seems too extreme, how about 10. Seriously. >> It seems exactly as good as any other integer to start counting rationally, >> and won't confuse people by looking like a 4.0 release. > > I think going to 10 or 40 is likely to be confusing, because there'll be two > different ways to refer to the same version (people will say 3.10 when > referring to version 10, or 38 when referring to version 3.8, respectively). > This happened to Java in the version 1.6 / version 6 numbering transition. > > In order to preserve numbering continuity and minimize confusion, if we go > from three-component versions (major.minor.patch) to two-component versions > (major.patch), I would suggest we go from x.y.z to x+1.0. (This is also > consistent with how GCC handled the transition.)
I agree with Richard. While I don't have a strong opinion about 3.10.x vs. 4.x vs. 4.0.x (assuming we document our *actual* bitcode compatibility promise), I think both 10.x and 40.x are actively confusing. _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
