This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC version bikeshedding
- From: Joern Rennecke <joern dot rennecke at embecosm dot com>
- To: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus at trippelsdorf dot de>
- Cc: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:29:44 +0100
- 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> <201407291845 dot 14107 dot ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr> <2745817d-ab90-42eb-9e79-9805b4f11573 at email dot android dot com> <20140729172736 dot GD22904 at x4>
On 29 July 2014 18:30, Markus Trippelsdorf <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Since gcc is released annually, why not tie the version to the year of
> the release, instead of choosing an arbitrary number?
What did the Romans every do for us? Release GCC XV, obviously...
Unfortunately, they couldn't release *.0 versions, for lack of a zero.
Now, if we are talking about the coming year, that would be 2015.
And since we use decimal numbers these days, that should be
reflected in version numbers of releases tagged anytime other
than 00:00 new years day.
A year without leap days/seconds has 365 days of 24 hours of 3600
seconds, so for second accuracy, we need eight digits after the
E.g. A GCC release on the 1st April 2015 at 09:00 UTC is made
90 days and 9 hours after the start of the year, and should thus carry
the version number 2015.24760274