This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][www] Document versioning scheme for GCC 5 and up
- From: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:56:49 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][www] Document versioning scheme for GCC 5 and up
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1408131415580 dot 20733 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <20140813124443 dot GU1784 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 02:21:29PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > The release management team has aggreed to go forward with the
> > change to bump the major with each further release.
> >
> > The following aims to document the details of the versioning scheme we
> > intend to use for GCC 5 and up.
> >
> > Summary in non-html: Development of GCC 5 will happen as
> > GCC 5.0.0 (experimental), once we enter regression-fixing-only mode
> > (post-stage3) it will become GCC 5.0.1 (prerelease). The
> > GCC 5 release itself will be numbered GCC 5.1.0 and development
> > on the branch will continue as GCC 5.1.1 followed by a GCC 5.2.0
> > release and GCC 5.2.1 branch development. Stage1 of GCC 6 will
> > bump us to GCC 6.0.0.
> >
> > Ok for www?
>
> Looks good to me, though, can you please add <a name="num_scheme">...</a>
> to the title? Would like to refer to that from index.html.
Will do.
> Here is my current set of changes (note, I have changed bugzilla to use
> [4.9/5 Regression] and similar subjects instead of
> [4.9/4.10 Regression] and renamed 4.10.0 version and milestones.
>
> Perhaps we should also change all 4.10.0 in Known to work and Known to fail
> fields?
Yeah, I suppose we can script that later when somebody figures out
the mysql database field.
> --- develop.html 16 Jul 2014 14:01:06 -0000 1.143
> +++ develop.html 13 Aug 2014 12:40:48 -0000
> @@ -502,6 +502,10 @@ stages of development, branch points, an
> | v
> | GCC 4.9.1 release (2014-07-16)
> |
> + New GCC versioning scheme announced
> + |
> + GCC 5 Stage 1
> + |
> v
>
> </pre>
> --- index.html 30 Jul 2014 17:57:07 -0000 1.933
> +++ index.html 13 Aug 2014 12:40:48 -0000
> @@ -52,6 +52,10 @@ mission statement</a>.</p>
>
> <dl class="news">
>
> +<dt><span>New GCC version numbering <a href="develop.html">scheme</a> announced</span>
> + <span class="date">[2014-08-13]</span></dt>
> + <dd></dd>
> +
> <dt><span><a href="gcc-4.9/">GCC 4.9.1</a> released</span>
> <span class="date">[2014-07-16]</span></dt>
> <dd></dd>
> @@ -165,17 +169,17 @@ Any additions? Don't be shy, send them
> <a href="gcc-5/changes.html">changes</a>)
> </dt><dd>
> Status:
> - <!--GCC 5.0 status below-->
> + <!--GCC 5 status below-->
> <a href="https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-04/msg00090.html";>2014-04-11</a>
> - <!--GCC 5.0 status above-->
> + <!--GCC 5 status above-->
> (general development, stage 1).
> <br />
> <span class="regress">
> <a
> - href="https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=4.10&target_milestone=4.8.4&target_milestone=4.9.2&target_milestone=4.10.0&known_to_fail_type=allwordssubstr&known_to_work_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&gcchost_type=allwordssubstr&gcchost=&gcctarget_type=allwordssubstr&gcctarget=&gccbuild_type=allwordssubstr&gccbuild=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=SUSPENDED&bug_status=WAITING&bug_status=REOPENED&priority=P1&priority=P2&priority=P3&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&fie
ld0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=">Serious
> + href="https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=5&target_milestone=4.8.4&target_milestone=4.9.2&target_milestone=5.0&known_to_fail_type=allwordssubstr&known_to_work_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&gcchost_type=allwordssubstr&gcchost=&gcctarget_type=allwordssubstr&gcctarget=&gccbuild_type=allwordssubstr&gccbuild=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=SUSPENDED&bug_status=WAITING&bug_status=REOPENED&priority=P1&priority=P2&priority=P3&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-
0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=">Serious
> regressions</a>.
> <a
> - href="https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=4.10&target_milestone=4.8.4&target_milestone=4.9.2&target_milestone=4.10.0&known_to_fail_type=allwordssubstr&known_to_work_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&gcchost_type=allwordssubstr&gcchost=&gcctarget_type=allwordssubstr&gcctarget=&gccbuild_type=allwordssubstr&gccbuild=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=SUSPENDED&bug_status=WAITING&bug_status=REOPENED&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=";
>All
> + href="https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=5&target_milestone=4.8.4&target_milestone=4.9.2&target_milestone=5.0&known_to_fail_type=allwordssubstr&known_to_work_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&gcchost_type=allwordssubstr&gcchost=&gcctarget_type=allwordssubstr&gcctarget=&gccbuild_type=allwordssubstr&gccbuild=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=SUSPENDED&bug_status=WAITING&bug_status=REOPENED&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=";>All
> regressions</a>.
> </span>
> </dd>
> --- releasing.html 27 Jun 2014 18:53:31 -0000 1.45
> +++ releasing.html 13 Aug 2014 12:40:48 -0000
> @@ -60,9 +60,8 @@ also files such as <code>/some/where/gcc
>
> <li>Upload the release to ftp.gnu.org.</li>
>
> -<li>Increment the version number in <code>gcc/BASE-VER</code>. Restore
> -the word "prerelease" (without the quotation marks) to
> -<code>gcc/DEV-PHASE</code>. Check these files in.</li>
> +<li>Increment the version number in <code>gcc/BASE-VER</code>.
> +<code>gcc/DEV-PHASE</code> remains empty. Check the file in.</li>
Hmm, before the release increment the minor version and set
the patchlevel to zero, after the release increment the patchlevel
version?
Otherwise looks ok.
Thanks,
Richard.