similar to: What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM Hal Finkel via lldb-dev < lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> > > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "LLDB Dev" <lldb-dev at

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Eric Christopher via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:43 AM Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM Hal Finkel via lldb-dev < >> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> ----- Original Message

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Hal Finkel via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> > > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "LLDB Dev" <lldb-dev at

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

Bug in cmake (or more likely the makefile?), pure and simple. Version numbers aren't strings, and they aren't floating point numbers, they are a series of integers separated by dots. I can't think of a project where interpreting version numbers that way won't work. On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Cristianno Martins via llvm-dev < llvm-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: >

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > 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 >>

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Mehdi Amini via lldb-dev < lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 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. > > Thanks! > > > > > If you have

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

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

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Richard Smith via lldb-dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> If 4 seems too confusing, and 40 seems too extreme, how about 10. >> Seriously. It seems exactly as good as any other integer to start counting >> rationally, and won't confuse people by looking like a 4.0 release. > > > I think going to 10 or 40 is likely to be

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 >

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:45 PM Rafael Espíndola < > openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> > I don't think this is as obvious as you might think it is. We can >> happily >> > drop the "major version equals bitcode compatibility"

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

Dear testers, The final version of 3.9.0 was just tagged (from the 3.9 branch at r280312). There were no changes after rc3. This took a little longer than expected, but on the up side that means it's had more time to be tested. Please build the final binaries and upload to the sftp. For others following along: this means 3.9.0 is complete, but it will take a few days to get the tarballs

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.

On Jun 27, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: >> 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

> On 2016-Jun-28, at 16:22, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> 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

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

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > 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