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

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 :-/

On 5 December 2016 at 20:07, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org>
wrote:
> 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 :-/
IMO, this is too small of a worry to encumber us for the rest of our
release days with silly zeroes.

I'd rather be redundantly explicit for the next year, than carry that
burden for the next 5 (or more).

cheers,
--renato

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 5 December 2016 at 20:07, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org>
wrote:
>> 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 :-/
>
> IMO, this is too small of a worry to encumber us for the rest of our
> release days with silly zeroes.
For me, it's a big worry, and I'm positive lots of developers (and any
code trying to parse our version numbers) would be confused by
dropping it.

I don't think having a redundant zero in the middle is a big problem:
we used to make minor releases but now we don't, so it stays at zero.
(And if for some reason we'd want to do one in the future, we could.)

This is the scheme we arrived at at the end of the great version
number discussion this summer, and I don't see any reason to change it
now.
> I'd rather be redundantly explicit for the next year, than carry that
> burden for the next 5 (or more).
Sure, if we think this is terribly annoying in the future and we
decide dropping the unused "minor" part of our version number is the
best thing, we could attempt it at that point. I'm not doing anything
now that would make that harder.

Thanks,
Hans

> On Dec 5, 2016, at 12:07 PM, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at
linaro.org <mailto: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 :-/
+1, I haven’t seen yet the downside of keeping the minor to 0 and bumping only
the patch number.

— 
Mehdi


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161205/f190a619/attachment.html>

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 12:07:25 -0800
Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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 :-/
Just do 4a, 4b, 4c ;-). Everyone will be as confused as possible ;-).

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 963 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161206/b2697d1e/attachment.sig>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
Michal
> Górny via cfe-dev
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 3:33 PM
> To: Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev
> Cc: llvm-dev; Release-testers; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org);
> cfe-dev
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [Openmp-dev] [4.0
> Release] Schedule and call for testers
> 
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 12:07:25 -0800
> Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> > 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 :-/
> 
> Just do 4a, 4b, 4c ;-). Everyone will be as confused as possible ;-).
Back in the day, every version was identified as "Latest."
No possible confusion there!

I'm fine with "4.0.1" in keeping with the major.minor.patch
convention,
given how the in-betweeners are really patch updates not minor versions.
--paulr
> 
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>