This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC version bikeshedding
- From: NightStrike <nightstrike at gmail dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <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: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 07:52:38 -0400
- Subject: Re: GCC version bikeshedding
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140720165506 dot GT3003 at laptop dot redhat dot com> <201407292258 dot 29357 dot ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr> <CAH6eHdR3dfbYin1LMWrSUJLsk7=iO6+orQXQmXdGRxzA71MKaA at mail dot gmail dot com> <201407310018 dot 05575 dot ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr> <CAH6eHdRx+CE7TFvMW8JvAxThSAMz07e8ke90qHs8oOD4H94tjw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 30 July 2014 23:18, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> What are you objecting to, calling the next release from trunk 5.0,
>>> and the next one after that 6.0? Or the wording chosen to describe the
>>> new versioning scheme?
>> Let's not start another subthread, please, this will be even more confusing.
> I'm not. I'm trying to get your message back on topic.
>> You can reply to my reply to Ian's message if you deem it necessary.
> Are you objecting to the numbering scheme, or Ian's description of it?
> If you have an objection to the concrete plan it would be nice if you
> stated clearly what it is.
One thing you might want to consider is that with the typical X.Y.Z
versioning of most GNU projects, changing X allows breaking
compatibility in a significant way with previous versions. While Z
fixes regressions and Y adds new features, X is a place to make
infrequent but paradigm shifting changes that are unconstrained by a
desire to stay backwards compatible with older values of X.
By going to what is essentially a Y.Z.0 release mechanism, you lose
that ability to some degree. Maybe that's ok in a mature project like