Re: egcs-1.2 -> gcc-2.95

[Alexandre Oliva <oliva at dcc dot unicamp dot br>]

On May 15, 1999, Alex Buell <alex.buell@tahallah.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, 15 May 1999, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
>> 2.95 is a nice round number.  That's about it.

> As much as I hate to argue with you, O Mighty Leader, I don't think 2.95
> is quite cricket, old boy. It is an odd number. I personally think these
> ones are better: 2.92, 2.94 or 2.96 are nicer and rounder. =8-) 
 
I'd take 97, because it's a prime number, or 99, because that's the
current year.  Nope, too much Microsoftish...

Anyway, I don't think it's a good idea to have internal version
numbers 2.93.* and external version number 2.95.  Even if, at release
time, the internal version number is changed to 2.95.0, we may have to 
release gcc 2.95.1 later, and its internal version number certainly
wouldn't be 2.95.1.  If this might get us confused, think about random 
users!

Unless we're going to change our internal versioning scheme.  We could
add yet another dot and number, and, after 2.95 is released, increase
the internal versions to 2.95.0.1, .2, .3, etc, until 2.95.1

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva IC-Unicamp, Bra[sz]il
{oliva,Alexandre.Oliva}@dcc.unicamp.br  aoliva@{acm.org,computer.org}
oliva@{gnu.org,kaffe.org,{egcs,sourceware}.cygnus.com,samba.org}
*** E-mail about software projects will be forwarded to mailing lists