This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Version numbers question

Thanks, Andrew, a reasonable reason. Time flies and GCC or its predecessor
has been around for about 25 years. In another 25, hopefully GCC will
still be a leading compiler and the larger numbers won't seem awkward.

Regarding what's a small vs large change, I'd say that building with C++
and newly generated C++ library was worthy of a major version bump, but
that's just my amateur opinion.

John wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 2015, at 6:55 AM, JohnT <> wrote:
>> I am wondering why it appears that GCC has started drastically raising its
>> major version number for minor changes, instead of spending several years
>> on version 3 and 4. 4.0.1, 4.1.1 and 4.12, 4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.5, up through
>> 4.7.0, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, the 4.8 and 4.9 releases, then version 5.1 and
>> talking about version 6. Little changes should be reflected in minor
>> version and bugfix numbers, not major version jumps.
> The simple answer is there is no justification to ever bump the major version any time soon so why not make the major version the one which gets bumped each year. So 5 is the version which is released this year, 6 next year, etc. this is no different from 4.9 last year and 4.8 the year before really. Just it was decided 4.10 does not make sense and is partly confusing to some users; does it come before or after 4.2. Anyways the decision was done to get rid of that confusion and also to avoid having to make a justification of when to bump the major version number. 

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]