This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Time for GCC 5.0? (TIC)
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Jeff Law <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 07:43 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> Ian Lance Taylor <email@example.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.
I'd rather make version numbers "simpler" by dropping one sub-part.
Thus 4.8.0 would become 5.0 (and branch releases 5.1, 5.2, etc.) and
4.9.0 would then be 6.0. Marketing loves high numbers after all!