This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][www] Document versioning scheme for GCC 5 and up
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 21:23:18 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][www] Document versioning scheme for GCC 5 and up
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1408131415580 dot 20733 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr>
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
> The following aims to document the details of the versioning scheme we
> intend to use for GCC 5 and up.
> Summary in non-html: Development of GCC 5 will happen as
> GCC 5.0.0 (experimental), once we enter regression-fixing-only mode
> (post-stage3) it will become GCC 5.0.1 (prerelease). The
> GCC 5 release itself will be numbered GCC 5.1.0 and development
> on the branch will continue as GCC 5.1.1 followed by a GCC 5.2.0
> release and GCC 5.2.1 branch development. Stage1 of GCC 6 will
> bump us to GCC 6.0.0.
Is the idea really to call the actual releases 5.1.0, 5.2.0 and
so forth, or will those be labled 5.1, 5.2,...?
Using the former for gcc/BASEVER etc. make sense. From a "marketing"
perspective I would recommend the simpler 5.1, 5.2, etc.