Re: Time for GCC 5.0? (TIC)

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On 11/05/2012 07:43 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> writes:
> > Also the fact that GCC is now written in C++ seems to me to be
> > deserving of a bump to 5.0.
>
> I see no reason why an internal design change that has no user visible
> effects should have any impact on the version number.
>
> Typically a major version bump is reserved for either massive new
> functionality or a break with backwards compatibility.
I tend to agree that major version number bumps ought to be tied to 
major user-visible changes.

I think dropping reload would quality, particularly if there are other 
major user visible changes going on.  For example, significant 
improvements in modularity allowing for easier plugin development, major 
improvements in static & dynamic analysis capabilities, etc.

jeff