llvm dev - Jun 2016 - [lldb-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 <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> 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 to
> those who are used to our current scheme. Chris suggested going
> straight to 40 to avoid this, but that also seems a bit extreme.
Extreme how?  What do you mean by “extreme"?

-Chris

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>
wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> 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 to
>> those who are used to our current scheme. Chris suggested going
>> straight to 40 to avoid this, but that also seems a bit extreme.
>
> Extreme how?  What do you mean by “extreme"?
Sorry, that might have been a poor choice of wording.

I just meant that change seems to have a much greater magnitude than
the other proposals. I realize that's sort of the point, to make the
change clear to users, but instinctively it feels wrong -- like
cheating by skipping 36 versions :-)

Thanks,
Hans

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:38 PM Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at
apple.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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 to
> >> those who are used to our current scheme. Chris suggested going
> >> straight to 40 to avoid this, but that also seems a bit extreme.
> >
> > Extreme how?  What do you mean by “extreme"?
>
> Sorry, that might have been a poor choice of wording.
>
> I just meant that change seems to have a much greater magnitude than
> the other proposals. I realize that's sort of the point, to make the
> change clear to users, but instinctively it feels wrong -- like
> cheating by skipping 36 versions :-)
>
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 think counting from 4 or counting from 40 are all fine ways to number
releases.

>
> Thanks,
> Hans
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160627/e1fdc013/attachment.html>