This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC version bikeshedding
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:38:47 -0600
- Subject: Re: GCC version bikeshedding
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140720165506 dot GT3003 at laptop dot redhat dot com> <7564e4f5-8030-4a23-8b0b-b1262265a349 at email dot android dot com> <20140720170146 dot GU3003 at laptop dot redhat dot com> <53CF8E48 dot 8090003 at redhat dot com> <CAKOQZ8yvTaos4Qo=cBEF070_rZkF9V-2L-76R6i7KLisBMEn-g at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 07/23/14 10:20, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Agreed. It's not 100% perfect, but, IMHO, it's significantly better
than what we're doing now and better than the various alternatives that
have been proposed.
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.