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: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>,Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>,"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 08:14:01 +0200
- 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> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 20 dot 1504112120440 dot 9357 at tuna dot site>
On April 11, 2015 9:23:18 PM GMT+02:00, Gerald Pfeifer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>> The following aims to document the details of the versioning scheme
>> 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.