This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: GCC 4.0 vs. 3.5 -- don't decide now!


Zack Weinberg wrote:
I have no quibble with everything you said except this:


However, "3.5" is a fairly decent version number from a "big change"
perspective; it's halfway to 4.0.


Don't perpetuate this pernicious error.  Version numbers are not
decimal fractions.  They are 3-tuples of nonnegative integers,
expressed in a convenient shorthand.
Right, this is the new orthodoxy. :-)

 There is no special meaning to a
.5 or a .90 or even a .99 release.
Of course, GCC 2.95 and Autoconf 2.50 are evidence that that attitude is not always taken. :-P Generally, version numbering seems to be about appearance as much as (or more than) anything else. You're fighting the 'good fight' against that point of view. I was simply describing what I thought random people's impressions would be.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]