This is the mail archive of the 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

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Jason Merrill <> wrote:
> On 07/20/2014 06:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 05:59:08PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> 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).
>> Ian/Jason, is that your understanding too?
> I didn't think that we had come to a decision, but I don't mind going ahead
> with this pattern.

I am also fine with it.

I think that if anybody has strong objections, now is the time to make
them.  Otherwise I think we should go with this plan.

To me, the basic summary of the idea is that there is no clear reason
to ever change the GCC major version number.  There were real
objections to changing it when we went from 3 to 4.  There will be
real objections for any future change from 4 to 5.  At the same time,
we face the fact that going from 4.9 to 4.10 will break some people's
existing scripts, as is also true of any other decision we can make.

Given that there is no clear reason to ever change the major version
number, making that change will not convey any useful information to
our users.  So let's just drop the major version number.  Once we've
made that decision, then the next release (in 2015) naturally becomes
5.0, the release after that (in 2016) becomes 6.0, etc.


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