On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via Openmp-dev <openmp-...@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). -Chris
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
