Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Hans Wennborg wrote: > >> I continue to think that 3.10 is the least defensible option out there. We >> have a time based release process with no mechanism or attempt to align >> behind “big” releases that could bring is to a 4.x number. You

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

> I think the main issue (besides users asking what's the big change in > 4.0, which I agree is not a big problem) is that the bitcode > compatibility policy is tied to the major version number. It is tied in saying we *can* drop compatibility, not that we will. If we still support loading 3.0

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

> -Original Message- > From: hwennb...@google.com [mailto:hwennb...@google.com] On Behalf Of Hans > Wennborg > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > I still don’t understand what “confusion” could be caused by going from > 3.9 to 4.0. Could someone

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jun 27, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Hans Wennborg wrote: >>> Eh, if we're switching to a completely unrelated versioning scheme, it >>> doesn't seem completely unreasonable. >>> >>> We could also count how

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

On Jun 27, 2016, at 9:57 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: > > I continue to think that 3.10 is the least defensible option out there. I agree, given that there isn’t a concurrent agreement that we want to define and conform to a semantic versioning scheme —

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

On Jun 27, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Hans Wennborg wrote: >> Eh, if we're switching to a completely unrelated versioning scheme, it >> doesn't seem completely unreasonable. >> >> We could also count how many time-based releases we have had and use that... >> >> :: shrug :: >> >> I

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:38 PM Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Hans

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev > wrote: >> That's what concerns me about going to the scheme Richard and Rafael >> suggested, of bumping the major version each time:

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev wrote: > That's what concerns me about going to the scheme Richard and Rafael > suggested, of bumping the major version each time: we'd release 4.0, > and would Tom's dot-release then be 4.1? That would be confusing

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

> On Jun 18, 2016, at 9:16 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev > wrote: > > On Jun 14, 2016, at 1:32 AM, Richard Smith via cfe-dev > > wrote: >> I think that this is the right approach, and we happen to have a natural

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

| Note that 81 > 8, so those examples would still work. Right, but also 81 > 9 so that example would not work, if you don't understand how the project does version numbers. As different projects work by different rules, I guess the interpretation of version numbers by other tools would have to

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

>Version numbers aren't strings, and they aren't floating point numbers, they are a series of integers separated by dots. I can't think of a project where interpreting version numbers that way won't work. TeX (asymptotically approaches pi), METAFONT (asymptotically approaches e), Opera (decimal

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

Bug in cmake (or more likely the makefile?), pure and simple. Version numbers aren't strings, and they aren't floating point numbers, they are a series of integers separated by dots. I can't think of a project where interpreting version numbers that way won't work. On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 7:21