This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC version bikeshedding
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus at trippelsdorf dot de>
- Cc: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, g at google dot com, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:06:57 -0700
- 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 Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
<markus@trippelsdorf.de> wrote:
> On 2014.07.29 at 19:14 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On July 29, 2014 6:45:13 PM CEST, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>> >> 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.
>>
>> 10.0 would be even better from a marketing perspective.
>
> Since gcc is released annually why not tie the version to the year of
> the release, instead of choosing an arbitrary number?
>
> 15.o
Personally I would prefer that we retain the ability to make more
rapid releases.
Ian