On 13 June 2016 at 13:30, Michael Kuperstein <mku...@google.com> wrote: > It would probably better for whoever wrote this text to pipe in, but I think > the idea is that (X+1).0 is supposed to be a kind of a "bridge" release. > > That is, if you have legacy IR files that contain dropped features, or if > the IR format changed significantly, you can still use the (X+1).0 > auto-upgrade (which may be fairly complex) to read them, but this > auto-upgrade complexity may be dropped in (X+1).1. > I'm not completely sure this makes sense, but this is how I've always > understood it.
I think that is the idea. When the text was written it was just codifying existing practices (3.0 could read 2.X). Cheers, Rafael _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
