> On 2016-Jun-28, at 16:22, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> > wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev > <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via Openmp-dev >> <openmp-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> I think I agree with Chris with 3.10 being the worst possible outcome. >> >> >> I'd be interested to understand why you or Chris thing 3.10 is the worst >> possible outcome. >> >> Chris has said it is because he thinks we'll never change the "3”, >> >> >> Yes, that is one reason. >> >> but I don't understand why 3.10 is worse than 3.9 was in that respect. >> >> >> Because it breaks from the established pattern we have, and means that we >> never get to 4. >> >> I happen to agree that we'll never change the "3", but I don't think this >> makes 3.10 a particularly bad choice. >> >> >> If you agree that we’ll never change the 3, then you are staying that you >> believe it is ok for the version number to be meaningless. In that case, I >> can’t see why you’d object to a policy change. >> >> I believe that the version number is important. Which is why I care so much >> about it :-) >> >> I think/hope we can agree that “Bitcode compatibility” is an obsolete notion >> to encode into the version number - from a historical perspective, we only >> used that as rationale because it happened to align well for the 1.9 to 2.0 >> conversion and then used it as an excuse to shed some legacy in the 3.0 >> timeframe. >> >> Given that, and given that we have a time based release, we should either >> leave the versioning alone (3.9/4.0/4.1) or switch to a semantic versioning >> model 3.9/4.0/5.0/6.0 or 3.9/40/41/42). > > Since there seems to be some kind of rough consensus forming around > the idea of moving towards a model with x.y version numbers where we > increment x every six months and y for the "dot" releases in between, > let's take it to a code review: > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D21821 > > What angles am I missing? I'm sure this can break the world in > interesting ways. (It looks like Clang's cmake config is already set > up for this though, by checking CLANG_HAS_VERSION_PATCHLEVEL).
For one thing, I can't find the patch on the mailing list ;). I'm guessing you missed adding llvm-commits as a subscriber? _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
