This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC version bikeshedding
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 12:22:16 +0200
- 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> <53D12887 dot 9060902 at redhat dot com>
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Jeff Law <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 07/23/14 10:20, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> 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.
> 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
If a native speaker can cook something up for the head of gcc-5/changes.html
about this change that would be nice. (yes, gcc-5/, not gcc-5.0/ ...)