This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC version bikeshedding
- From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:45:13 +0200
- Subject: Re: GCC version bikeshedding
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140720165506 dot GT3003 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>
> I think that if anybody has strong objections, now is the time to make
> them. Otherwise I think we should go with this plan.
IMHO the cure is worse than the disease.
> 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.
I don't really understand the "naturally": if you drop the major version
number, the next release should be 10.0, not 5.0. Here we seem to be leaning
towards a weird scheme where we retain the major version number but change its
meaning, which will be even more confusing than the current scheme.