Clemens Koller clemens.koller@anagramm.de
Fri Jul 13 18:26:00 GMT 2007

Russ Allbery schrieb:
> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
>> How about, after the 4.2.1 release, switch the branch to GPLv3 and then
>> release 4.2.3, without any functional changes, under GPLv3?
>> The skipped minor version number (to a .3, no less) and the quick
>> succession of releases would probably hint at the license upgrade, and
>> it would probably make the FSF happier with a GCC release under GPLv3 in
>> a short time-frame.
> Just a GCC user, not a developer, so please weigh my opinion
> appropriately, but I for one would strongly prefer that the GCC project
> not use "cute" version number changes as a form of semaphore communication
> to users.  That's what release notes are for.  Version numbers are the
> most useful when they are monotonically increasing, follow a normal
> arithmetic progression, and follow a consistent policy about how they
> change with each release.
> I personally don't care of the GPLv3 change gets a major version number
> change or a minor one, but please make the first 4.3 release 4.3.0, and
> please maintain the convention that the next minor release after 4.2.1 is
> 4.2.2.  Anything else is needlessly confusing IMO and raises pointless
> questions.

100% ACK!

I wouldn't care if you label the first GPLv3 version 5.0.0, as long as
it's a monotonic version number increase.

Just my 5.0.0 cents. ;-)

Clemens Koller
R&D Imaging Devices
Anagramm GmbH
Rupert-Mayer-Straße 45/1
Linhof Werksgelände
D-81379 München
Fax 089-741518-19

More information about the Gcc mailing list