----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev" <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>, > "LLDB Dev" <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org>, > "openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)" <openmp-...@lists.llvm.org> > Cc: "r jordans" <r.jord...@tue.nl>, "Paul Robinson" > <paul_robin...@playstation.sony.com> > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 6:54:19 PM > Subject: [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release > plan and call for testers) > > 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?
I think that this is the right approach, and we happen to have a natural forcing function here: opaque pointer types. I think we should increment the major version number when opaque pointer types are here, as it will be a major breaking change, and then we'll have a version 4.0. Until then, unless something else breaking comes up, 3.10 sounds fine to me. -Hal > > - 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 > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-...@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > -- Hal Finkel Assistant Computational Scientist Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
