llvm dev - Dec 2016 - [Release-testers] [Openmp-dev] [4.0 Release] Schedule and call for testers

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 5 December 2016 at 18:56, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers
> <release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> The idea is that Tom's stable releases will keep incrementing the
>> "patch" part of the version numbers, just as today, so they
would be
>> 4.0.1, 4.0.2, etc.
>
> Hum, this looks weird. I was under the impression that we'd do 4.1, 4.2
instead.
I'd like to avoid 4.1 because of the potential for confusion about
whether it's a major release (as it would have been under the old
scheme) or a patch release.
> Otherwise, it'll be:
>
> * 3.9.0
> * 3.9.1
> * 4.0.0
> * 4.0.1
> * 5.0.0
> * 5.0.1
>
> With a totally redundant zero in the middle.
Yes, it has a redundant zero in the middle, but I don't think that's a
terrible thing, and it's very clear what the version number means.

The alternative would be:

3.9.0
3.9.1
4.0.0
4.1.0 <-- Can't tell from the version number what kind of release this
is.
> Unless we're planning to extend the maintenance of the 5.x branch and
> release 5.1.0 *after* 6.0.0 is out, which would be a major change in
> how we release LLVM. I don't think that's the plan.
Right, not planning to do that.

> On Dec 5, 2016, at 11:56 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at
linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 5 December 2016 at 18:56, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers
>> <release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> The idea is that Tom's stable releases will keep incrementing
the
>>> "patch" part of the version numbers, just as today, so
they would be
>>> 4.0.1, 4.0.2, etc.
>> 
>> Hum, this looks weird. I was under the impression that we'd do 4.1,
4.2 instead.
> 
> I'd like to avoid 4.1 because of the potential for confusion about
> whether it's a major release (as it would have been under the old
> scheme) or a patch release.
> 
>> Otherwise, it'll be:
>> 
>> * 3.9.0
>> * 3.9.1
>> * 4.0.0
>> * 4.0.1
>> * 5.0.0
>> * 5.0.1
>> 
>> With a totally redundant zero in the middle.
> 
> Yes, it has a redundant zero in the middle, but I don't think
that's a
> terrible thing, and it's very clear what the version number means.
> 
> The alternative would be:
> 
> 3.9.0
> 3.9.1
> 4.0.0
> 4.1.0 <-- Can't tell from the version number what kind of release
this is.
Just keep two digits. X.Y and drop .Z completely.

On 5 December 2016 at 19:56, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org>
wrote:
> I'd like to avoid 4.1 because of the potential for confusion about
> whether it's a major release (as it would have been under the old
> scheme) or a patch release.
But if the versioning scheme is different, users will have to
understand what it means anyway.

Until now we had a weird and very unique logic, and we're moving to a
more sensible logic, because it's similar to what some other projects
are doing.

I can see as much confusion from 4.0.1 -> 5.0.0 than by having a 4.1
that used to be weird before.

After a few releases everything will be clear anyway... I really don't
want to make the foreseeable future weird again to avoid a potential
misunderstanding for one or two releases.

Let's just be brutally clear in all release communications and
hopefully people will understand.

> The alternative would be:
>
> 3.9.0
> 3.9.1
> 4.0.0
> 4.1.0 <-- Can't tell from the version number what kind of release
this is.
No, that has a redundant zero, too.

The alternative is:

3.9.0
3.9.1
4.0
4.1
5.0
5.1

etc.

cheers,
--renato

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 5 December 2016 at 19:56, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org>
wrote:
>> I'd like to avoid 4.1 because of the potential for confusion about
>> whether it's a major release (as it would have been under the old
>> scheme) or a patch release.
>
> But if the versioning scheme is different, users will have to
> understand what it means anyway.
>
> Until now we had a weird and very unique logic, and we're moving to a
> more sensible logic, because it's similar to what some other projects
> are doing.
>
> I can see as much confusion from 4.0.1 -> 5.0.0 than by having a 4.1
> that used to be weird before.
>
> After a few releases everything will be clear anyway... I really don't
> want to make the foreseeable future weird again to avoid a potential
> misunderstanding for one or two releases.
>
> Let's just be brutally clear in all release communications and
> hopefully people will understand.
>
>
>> The alternative would be:
>>
>> 3.9.0
>> 3.9.1
>> 4.0.0
>> 4.1.0 <-- Can't tell from the version number what kind of
release this is.
>
> No, that has a redundant zero, too.
>
> The alternative is:
>
> 3.9.0
> 3.9.1
> 4.0
> 4.1
> 5.0
> 5.1
I'm worried that users will, with some reason, think that the 4.1 and
5.1 releases are the same kind as 2.1 and 3.1 :-/