On 2014.07.29 at 19:14 +0200, Richard Biener 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.
Since gcc is released annually why not tie the version to the year of the release, instead of choosing an arbitrary number? 15.o -- Markus
