This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC version bikeshedding
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>,Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>,Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:14:16 +0200
- 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>
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.
Richard.
Here we seem to be
>leaning
>towards a weird scheme where we retain the major version number but
>change its
>meaning, which will be even more confusing than the current scheme.