On 29 July 2014 18:30, Markus Trippelsdorf <mar...@trippelsdorf.de> wrote: > Since gcc is released annually, why not tie the version to the year of > the release, instead of choosing an arbitrary number? > > 15.o
What did the Romans every do for us? Release GCC XV, obviously... Unfortunately, they couldn't release *.0 versions, for lack of a zero. Now, if we are talking about the coming year, that would be 2015. And since we use decimal numbers these days, that should be reflected in version numbers of releases tagged anytime other than 00:00 new years day. A year without leap days/seconds has 365 days of 24 hours of 3600 seconds, so for second accuracy, we need eight digits after the decimal point. E.g. A GCC release on the 1st April 2015 at 09:00 UTC is made 90 days and 9 hours after the start of the year, and should thus carry the version number 2015.24760274
