Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-26 14:21 UTC
[llvm-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)
I also support Chris's position of 4.0, 4.1 etc. I don't think "majorness" is that important, and we can sort out the bit code compatibility story some other way. Sent from phone On Jun 24, 2016 4:42 PM, "Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev" < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > > Breaking this out into a separate thread since it's kind of a separate > > issue, and to make sure people see it. > > > > If you have opinions on this, please chime in. I'd like to collect as > > many arguments here as possible to make a good decision. The main > > contestants are 4.0 and 3.10, and I've seen folks being equally > > surprised by both. > > Thanks everyone for chiming in. > > Please correct me if I misrepresent your opinion here, but I need to > try and summarize this thread for my own sanity: > > The thread started out with lots of support for 3.10, the reasoning > being roughly that we shouldn't bump the major version number unless > we want to signify major change (Mehdi, Hal, Blaikie, Saleem, > Chandler, Anton, Eric, Aaron, Sean, Vikram). > > 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, ..). > > Chris advocated for "keep adding 0.1 to each major release" (in the > decimal sense), i.e. 3.9, 4.0, 4.1, etc. I haven't seen anyone else > suggest this. "I do not think it is reasonable at all to go to '3.10' > after '3.9', because we will never get to '4.0'." > > Chris then expressed support for alternatively just incrementing the > major version each time, as Richard suggested, but starting at 40. > > Rafael expressed support for the above, but starting at 4.0: "It is > simply not worth the time to try to figure out what is 'major' in a > project with so many different uses." > > Chandler said he didn't like Chris's "keep adding 0.1 to each major > release" scheme: "we shouldn't just go from 3.9 to 4.0 because of some > decimal correspondence", and said he was open to either going to 3.10 > with the current major/minor split, or if we don't want that, use > Richard's suggestion. > > Michael pointed out that if we do change the numbering scheme, > changing the binary compatibility guarantee to something time-based > isn't equivalent to what we currently have. > > > > So, it seems we're at an impasse with several folks in favour of 3.10, > Chris speaking out strongly against it, and Richard's option which has > some traction and which no one's disagreed with so far, but which > would be a bigger change. > > I'll have a think about this over the weekend. > > Cheers, > Hans > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160626/4e4ccd5f/attachment-0001.html>
Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-26 17:01 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)
I also believe this is the simplest versioning scheme*. It eliminates all future debates on this topic (e.g, when to bump major version etc) and solves the problem once and for all -- which is another plus :) *) similar suggestions a) start from 4, increase by 1; b) start from 40, increase by 1. Date based scheme is also a variant of it. David On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Reid Kleckner via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> I also support Chris's position of 4.0, 4.1 etc. I don't think "majorness" > is that important, and we can sort out the bit code compatibility story > some other way. > > Sent from phone > On Jun 24, 2016 4:42 PM, "Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev" < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: >> > Breaking this out into a separate thread since it's kind of a separate >> > issue, and to make sure people see it. >> > >> > If you have opinions on this, please chime in. I'd like to collect as >> > many arguments here as possible to make a good decision. The main >> > contestants are 4.0 and 3.10, and I've seen folks being equally >> > surprised by both. >> >> Thanks everyone for chiming in. >> >> Please correct me if I misrepresent your opinion here, but I need to >> try and summarize this thread for my own sanity: >> >> The thread started out with lots of support for 3.10, the reasoning >> being roughly that we shouldn't bump the major version number unless >> we want to signify major change (Mehdi, Hal, Blaikie, Saleem, >> Chandler, Anton, Eric, Aaron, Sean, Vikram). >> >> 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, ..). >> >> Chris advocated for "keep adding 0.1 to each major release" (in the >> decimal sense), i.e. 3.9, 4.0, 4.1, etc. I haven't seen anyone else >> suggest this. "I do not think it is reasonable at all to go to '3.10' >> after '3.9', because we will never get to '4.0'." >> >> Chris then expressed support for alternatively just incrementing the >> major version each time, as Richard suggested, but starting at 40. >> >> Rafael expressed support for the above, but starting at 4.0: "It is >> simply not worth the time to try to figure out what is 'major' in a >> project with so many different uses." >> >> Chandler said he didn't like Chris's "keep adding 0.1 to each major >> release" scheme: "we shouldn't just go from 3.9 to 4.0 because of some >> decimal correspondence", and said he was open to either going to 3.10 >> with the current major/minor split, or if we don't want that, use >> Richard's suggestion. >> >> Michael pointed out that if we do change the numbering scheme, >> changing the binary compatibility guarantee to something time-based >> isn't equivalent to what we currently have. >> >> >> >> So, it seems we're at an impasse with several folks in favour of 3.10, >> Chris speaking out strongly against it, and Richard's option which has >> some traction and which no one's disagreed with so far, but which >> would be a bigger change. >> >> I'll have a think about this over the weekend. >> >> Cheers, >> Hans >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160626/396b0ba6/attachment.html>
Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-26 20:20 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:01 AM Xinliang David Li via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> I also believe this is the simplest versioning scheme*. It eliminates all > future debates on this topic (e.g, when to bump major version etc) and > solves the problem once and for all -- which is another plus :) >Except that we'll have to keep dealing with people who are confused why we have two version numbers but they don't mean anything. That's why I think if we don't want major/minor going forward, we should remove the '.' regardless of what number we pick.> > *) similar suggestions a) start from 4, increase by 1; b) start from 40, > increase by 1. Date based scheme is also a variant of it. > > David > > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Reid Kleckner via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> I also support Chris's position of 4.0, 4.1 etc. I don't think >> "majorness" is that important, and we can sort out the bit code >> compatibility story some other way. >> >> Sent from phone >> On Jun 24, 2016 4:42 PM, "Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev" < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> > Breaking this out into a separate thread since it's kind of a separate >>> > issue, and to make sure people see it. >>> > >>> > If you have opinions on this, please chime in. I'd like to collect as >>> > many arguments here as possible to make a good decision. The main >>> > contestants are 4.0 and 3.10, and I've seen folks being equally >>> > surprised by both. >>> >>> Thanks everyone for chiming in. >>> >>> Please correct me if I misrepresent your opinion here, but I need to >>> try and summarize this thread for my own sanity: >>> >>> The thread started out with lots of support for 3.10, the reasoning >>> being roughly that we shouldn't bump the major version number unless >>> we want to signify major change (Mehdi, Hal, Blaikie, Saleem, >>> Chandler, Anton, Eric, Aaron, Sean, Vikram). >>> >>> 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, ..). >>> >>> Chris advocated for "keep adding 0.1 to each major release" (in the >>> decimal sense), i.e. 3.9, 4.0, 4.1, etc. I haven't seen anyone else >>> suggest this. "I do not think it is reasonable at all to go to '3.10' >>> after '3.9', because we will never get to '4.0'." >>> >>> Chris then expressed support for alternatively just incrementing the >>> major version each time, as Richard suggested, but starting at 40. >>> >>> Rafael expressed support for the above, but starting at 4.0: "It is >>> simply not worth the time to try to figure out what is 'major' in a >>> project with so many different uses." >>> >>> Chandler said he didn't like Chris's "keep adding 0.1 to each major >>> release" scheme: "we shouldn't just go from 3.9 to 4.0 because of some >>> decimal correspondence", and said he was open to either going to 3.10 >>> with the current major/minor split, or if we don't want that, use >>> Richard's suggestion. >>> >>> Michael pointed out that if we do change the numbering scheme, >>> changing the binary compatibility guarantee to something time-based >>> isn't equivalent to what we currently have. >>> >>> >>> >>> So, it seems we're at an impasse with several folks in favour of 3.10, >>> Chris speaking out strongly against it, and Richard's option which has >>> some traction and which no one's disagreed with so far, but which >>> would be a bigger change. >>> >>> I'll have a think about this over the weekend. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Hans >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-dev mailing list >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >> >> > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160626/67734d6d/attachment.html>
Reasonably Related Threads
- What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)
- [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)
- [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)
- What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)
- What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)