Breaking this out into a separate thread since it's kind of a separate issue, and to make sure people see it.
If you have opinions on this, please chime in. I'd like to collect as many arguments here as possible to make a good decision. The main contestants are 4.0 and 3.10, and I've seen folks being equally surprised by both. Brain-dump so far: - After LLVM 1.9 came 2.0, and after 2.9 came 3.0; naturally, 4.0 comes after 3.9. - There are special bitcode stability rules [1] concerning major version bumps. 2.0 and 3.0 had major IR changes, but since there aren't any this time, we should go to 3.10. - The bitcode stability rules allow for breakage with major versions, but it doesn't require it, so 4.0 is fine. - But maybe we want to save 4.0 for when we do have a significant IR change? - We've never had an x.10 version before; maybe that would be confusing? Perhaps it's simply time to move on (like Linux 2.6.39 -> 3.0 and 3.19 -> 4.0). - Since we do time-based rather than feature-based releases, the major version number shouldn't mean anything special anyway (e.g. big IR changes or not), so 4.0? - Everyone knows that after 9 comes 10, so 3.10 it is. The version is a tuple after all. - Let's go for 4.0 now, and 5.0 after that. Then the "dot"-releases in between would correspond to minor version bumps, which would make sense (and catch up with GCC!). - It's just a number, no big deal; flip a coin or something. What do you think? - Hans [1]. http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#ir-backwards-compatibility _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
