Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How about, after the 4.2.1 release, switch the branch to GPLv3 and then > release 4.2.3, without any functional changes, under GPLv3?
> The skipped minor version number (to a .3, no less) and the quick > succession of releases would probably hint at the license upgrade, and > it would probably make the FSF happier with a GCC release under GPLv3 in > a short time-frame. Just a GCC user, not a developer, so please weigh my opinion appropriately, but I for one would strongly prefer that the GCC project not use "cute" version number changes as a form of semaphore communication to users. That's what release notes are for. Version numbers are the most useful when they are monotonically increasing, follow a normal arithmetic progression, and follow a consistent policy about how they change with each release. I personally don't care of the GPLv3 change gets a major version number change or a minor one, but please make the first 4.3 release 4.3.0, and please maintain the convention that the next minor release after 4.2.1 is 4.2.2. Anything else is needlessly confusing IMO and raises pointless questions. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
