On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 11/05/2012 07:43 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: >> >> >> Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> writes: >>> >>> Also the fact that GCC is now written in C++ seems to me to be >>> deserving of a bump to 5.0. >> >> >> I see no reason why an internal design change that has no user visible >> effects should have any impact on the version number. >> >> Typically a major version bump is reserved for either massive new >> functionality or a break with backwards compatibility. > > I tend to agree that major version number bumps ought to be tied to major > user-visible changes. > > I think dropping reload would quality, particularly if there are other major > user visible changes going on. For example, significant improvements in > modularity allowing for easier plugin development, major improvements in > static & dynamic analysis capabilities, etc.
I'd rather make version numbers "simpler" by dropping one sub-part. Thus 4.8.0 would become 5.0 (and branch releases 5.1, 5.2, etc.) and 4.9.0 would then be 6.0. Marketing loves high numbers after all! Richard. > jeff
