On 29 July 2014 18:14, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On July 29, 2014 6:45:13 PM CEST, Eric Botcazou <ebotca...@libertysurf.fr> > wrote: >>> I think that if anybody has strong objections, now is the time to >>make >>> them. Otherwise I think we should go with this plan. >> >>IMHO the cure is worse than the disease. >> >>> Given that there is no clear reason to ever change the major version >>> number, making that change will not convey any useful information to >>> our users. So let's just drop the major version number. Once we've >>> made that decision, then the next release (in 2015) naturally becomes >>> 5.0, the release after that (in 2016) becomes 6.0, etc. >> >>I don't really understand the "naturally": if you drop the major >>version >>number, the next release should be 10.0, not 5.0. > > 10.0 would be even better from a marketing perspective.
So if we want version number inflation with plausible deniability, how about we first increment the miner version number - so we get 4.10.0, and then we concatenate major and minor version number, yielding 410.0
