search for: d21821

....0 or 3.9/40/41/42). Since there seems to be some kind of rough consensus forming around the idea of moving towards a model with x.y version numbers where we increment x every six months and y for the "dot" releases in between, let's take it to a code review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21821 What angles am I missing? I'm sure this can break the world in interesting ways. (It looks like Clang's cmake config is already set up for this though, by checking CLANG_HAS_VERSION_PATCHLEVEL). - Hans

...ce there seems to be some kind of rough consensus forming around > the idea of moving towards a model with x.y version numbers where we > increment x every six months and y for the "dot" releases in between, > let's take it to a code review: > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D21821 > > What angles am I missing? I'm sure this can break the world in > interesting ways. (It looks like Clang's cmake config is already set > up for this though, by checking CLANG_HAS_VERSION_PATCHLEVEL). For one thing, I can't find the patch on the mailing list ;). I'm...

On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via Openmp-dev <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I think I agree with Chris with 3.10 being the worst possible outcome. > > I'd be interested to understand why you or Chris thing 3.10 is the worst possible outcome. > > Chris has said it is because he thinks we'll never change the "3”, Yes, that is one reason.