SC decision on version numbering: 4.0

[Robert Dewar]

Per Bothner wrote:

> Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
>> Well to me, to repeat my earlier thoughts, that is completely
>> backward, as things stabilize, minor releases are appropriate.
>> A 5.0 release as a user says "unstable, major changes".
> 
> 
> The other reason for increasing a version number is for dynamic
> shared library numbering.  If a new ABI is majorly incompatible
> with the old one, then old libraries will be incompatible, so
> it may be less confusing to bump major version numbers.  It's
> a major change, but hopefully will be more-or-less stable.
> If you prefer 5.0 could be "a stable ABI has been specified and
> implemented" - it's *intended* to be stable, but there may be
> minor bugs.

OK, I agree that a *change* involving a majorly incompatible
ABI warrants a major version number change. Sorry I missed
that you were making this point.