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 version bikeshedding


Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> writes:
> On July 20, 2014 5:55:06 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>>Hi!
>>
>>So, what versioning scheme have we actually agreed on, before I change
>>it in
>>wwwdocs?  Is that
>>5.0.0 in ~ April 2015, 5.0.1 in ~ June-July 2015 and 5.1.0 in ~ April
>>2016,
>>or
>>5.0 in ~ April 2015, 5.1 in ~ June-July 2015 and 6.0 in ~ April 2016?
>>The only thing I understood was that we don't want 4.10, but for the
>>rest
>>various people expressed different preferences and then it was
>>presented as
>>agreement on 5.0, which applies to both of the above.
>>
>>It is not a big deal either way of course.
>
> I understood we agreed on 5.0 and further 5.1, 5.2 releases from the
> branch and 6.0 a year later. With unspecified uses for the patch level
> number (so leave it at zero).

Was this a Cauldron thing?  Could you summarise it for the people who
weren't there?  I don't strongly object, but it seems like unnecessary
churn (especially in terms of user expectations).

Does that mean that __GNUC_MINOR__ is going to become the patchlevel?
Or is __GNUC_MINOR__ going to be 0, with 5.x.y setting __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__
to x?  If the latter, what happens to y?

Thanks,
Richard


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