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 29 July 2014 18:14, Richard Biener <> wrote:
> On July 29, 2014 6:45:13 PM CEST, Eric Botcazou <> wrote:
>>> I think that if anybody has strong objections, now is the time to
>>> 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
>>number, the next release should be 10.0, not 5.0.
> 10.0 would be even better from a marketing perspective.

So if we want version number inflation with plausible deniability, how
about we first increment the miner version number - so we get 4.10.0,
and then we concatenate major and minor version number, yielding

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