SC decision on version numbering: 4.0

public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed

* SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
@ 2004-09-09 18:52 Per Bothner
  2004-09-09 19:05 ` Zack Weinberg
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Per Bothner @ 2004-09-09 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc

The Steering Committee has decided that the the version number of
the next mainline-based tree-ssa-based release should be "4.0".
Some people preferred 3.95, but most preferred 4.0, finding
Robert Dewar's (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-08/msg01480.html)
argument compelling.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 18:52 SC decision on version numbering: 4.0 Per Bothner
@ 2004-09-09 19:05 ` Zack Weinberg
  2004-09-09 22:10   ` Gabriel Dos Reis
  2004-09-09 21:43 ` Mike Stump
  2004-09-10  1:18 ` Giovanni Bajo
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Zack Weinberg @ 2004-09-09 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Per Bothner; +Cc: gcc

Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> writes:

> The Steering Committee has decided that the the version number of
> the next mainline-based tree-ssa-based release should be "4.0".
> Some people preferred 3.95, but most preferred 4.0, finding
> Robert Dewar's (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-08/msg01480.html)
> argument compelling.

Let it be said that I still do not agree with this decision.  
I disapprove of any change to the major version number except when
there is no other alternative.  However, this is the last time I will
object to *this* increase of the major version number.

zw

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 19:05 ` Zack Weinberg
@ 2004-09-09 22:10   ` Gabriel Dos Reis
  2004-09-09 22:22     ` Per Bothner
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2004-09-09 22:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: Per Bothner, gcc

Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:

| Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> writes:
| 
| > The Steering Committee has decided that the the version number of
| > the next mainline-based tree-ssa-based release should be "4.0".
| > Some people preferred 3.95, but most preferred 4.0, finding
| > Robert Dewar's (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-08/msg01480.html)
| > argument compelling.
| 
| Let it be said that I still do not agree with this decision.  
| I disapprove of any change to the major version number except when

At this stage, it is less an issue of approving or disapproving.
Mark had recently recalled the excellent point that, as RM for
mainline, he makes decisions and expects people to respect them.  I
guess that point holds for SC decisions too.

| there is no other alternative.  However, this is the last time I will
| object to *this* increase of the major version number.

-- Gaby

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 22:10   ` Gabriel Dos Reis
@ 2004-09-09 22:22     ` Per Bothner
  2004-09-09 22:39       ` Robert Dewar
  2004-09-09 22:49       ` Phil Edwards
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Per Bothner @ 2004-09-09 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Gabriel Dos Reis; +Cc: Zack Weinberg, gcc

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:
> | Let it be said that I still do not agree with this decision.  
> | I disapprove of any change to the major version number except when
> 
> At this stage, it is less an issue of approving or disapproving.
> Mark had recently recalled the excellent point that, as RM for
> mainline, he makes decisions and expects people to respect them.  I
> guess that point holds for SC decisions too.

I didn't read Zack's posting to imply anything else - just to
respectfully register his disagreement.

> | there is no other alternative.

It's hard to argue with that position, since it's hard to imagine
when "no other alternative" would be the case.

It's been suggested that 5.0 might be appropriate when we have
a really stable C++ ABI, including libstdc++ header files.  You
could make same condition for the in-progress Java "binary
compatible" ABI.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 22:22     ` Per Bothner
@ 2004-09-09 22:39       ` Robert Dewar
  2004-09-09 22:52         ` Per Bothner
  2004-09-09 22:49       ` Phil Edwards
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 2004-09-09 22:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Per Bothner; +Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis, Zack Weinberg, gcc

Per Bothner wrote:

> It's been suggested that 5.0 might be appropriate when we have
> a really stable C++ ABI, including libstdc++ header files.  You
> could make same condition for the in-progress Java "binary
> compatible" ABI.

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".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 22:39       ` Robert Dewar
@ 2004-09-09 22:52         ` Per Bothner
  2004-09-09 23:10           ` Robert Dewar
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Per Bothner @ 2004-09-09 22:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Robert Dewar; +Cc: gcc

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.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 22:52         ` Per Bothner
@ 2004-09-09 23:10           ` Robert Dewar
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 2004-09-09 23:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Per Bothner; +Cc: gcc

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.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 22:22     ` Per Bothner
  2004-09-09 22:39       ` Robert Dewar
@ 2004-09-09 22:49       ` Phil Edwards
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Phil Edwards @ 2004-09-09 22:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Per Bothner; +Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis, Zack Weinberg, gcc

On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 03:15:26PM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> 
> It's been suggested that 5.0 might be appropriate when we have
> a really stable C++ ABI, including libstdc++ header files.  You
> could make same condition for the in-progress Java "binary
> compatible" ABI.

Even I would agree with bumping the major number at those points.  I was
kinda hoping we'd wait for the former for 4.0, but enh.  Integers are cheap.

-- 
AI.cpp:33241: warning: You wrote 'neurons.merge(solution1, solution2)",
AI.cpp:33241: you probably MEANT "neurons->merge(solution1, solution2)",
AI.cpp:33241: but there is a MUCH better way to implement this whole
AI.cpp:33241: function; doing that instead.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 18:52 SC decision on version numbering: 4.0 Per Bothner
  2004-09-09 19:05 ` Zack Weinberg
@ 2004-09-09 21:43 ` Mike Stump
  2004-09-09 21:50   ` Joseph S. Myers
                     ` (3 more replies)
  2004-09-10  1:18 ` Giovanni Bajo
  2 siblings, 4 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Mike Stump @ 2004-09-09 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Per Bothner; +Cc: GCC Mailing List, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches

On Sep 9, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Per Bothner wrote:
> The Steering Committee has decided that the the version number of
> the next mainline-based tree-ssa-based release should be "4.0".
> Some people preferred 3.95, but most preferred 4.0, finding
> Robert Dewar's (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-08/msg01480.html)
> argument compelling.

Normally, I would just check this in...  but today, I shall ask for 
approval...


Ok?


Index: version.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/version.c,v
retrieving revision 1.2449
diff -u -p -u -r1.2449 version.c
--- version.c   9 Sep 2004 00:16:14 -0000       1.2449
+++ version.c   9 Sep 2004 21:27:10 -0000
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
     please modify this string to indicate that, e.g. by putting your
     organization's name in parentheses at the end of the string.  */

-const char version_string[] = "3.5.0 20040909 (experimental)";
+const char version_string[] = "4.0.0 20040909 (experimental)";

  /* This is the location of the online document giving instructions for
     reporting bugs.  If you distribute a modified version of GCC,

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 21:43 ` Mike Stump
@ 2004-09-09 21:50   ` Joseph S. Myers
  2004-09-09 23:30     ` Mike Stump
                       ` (2 more replies)
  2004-09-09 21:58   ` Gabriel Dos Reis
                     ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  3 siblings, 3 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Joseph S. Myers @ 2004-09-09 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Stump; +Cc: Per Bothner, GCC Mailing List, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Mike Stump wrote:

> Normally, I would just check this in...  but today, I shall ask for
> approval...

branching.html lists all the places that need changing for new major 
versions (mutatis mutandis for this case where the version number changes 
on mainline without an associated branch).  It is however out of date with 
regard to Gerald's changes to do snapshots from multiple branches; some 
special measures may be needed so that the first 4.0 snapshot has diffs 
from the last 3.5 one (and branching.html should document the applicable 
special measures).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
  http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/#c90status - status of C90 for GCC 3.5
    jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
    jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 21:50   ` Joseph S. Myers
@ 2004-09-09 23:30     ` Mike Stump
  2004-09-09 23:36       ` Joseph S. Myers
  2004-09-10  0:00       ` Daniel Berlin
       [not found]     ` <C8A43CC3-02BB-11D9-B40F-000393941EE6@apple.com>
  2004-09-11 20:55     ` SC decision on version numbering: 4.0 Gerald Pfeifer
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Mike Stump @ 2004-09-09 23:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Joseph S. Myers
  Cc: Per Bothner, GCC Mailing List, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches

On Sep 9, 2004, at 2:48 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> branching.html lists all the places that need changing for new major
> versions

http://gcc.gnu.org/branching.html

	16.  	Update the email parsing script to handle bugs against the new 
versions. The script is in CVS at 
wwwdocs/bugzilla/contrib/bug_email.pl. Search for an existing version 
(like "3.3"), and update both places it occurs to handle the new 
version through copy and paste.

Doing diffs in wwwdocs/bugzilla/contrib:
*** ./bug_email.pl.~1~  Thu Aug 26 10:19:45 2004
--- ./bug_email.pl      Thu Sep  9 15:06:34 2004
*************** sub writeBugIntoDB
*** 302,309 ****
       my($version) = "";
       my($release) = $fields{"Release"};
       if ($release ne "") {
!           if ($release =~ /.*3\.5\.0.*/o) {
!           $version = "3.5.0";
       }
       elsif ($release =~ /.*3\.4\.3.*/o) {
             $version = "3.4.3";
--- 302,312 ----
       my($version) = "";
       my($release) = $fields{"Release"};
       if ($release ne "") {
!           if ($release =~ /.*4\.0\.0.*/o) {
!           $version = "4.0.0";
!     }
!     elsif ($release =~ /.*3\.5\.0.*/o) {
!           $version = "4.0.0";
       }
       elsif ($release =~ /.*3\.4\.3.*/o) {
             $version = "3.4.3";
--------------

Ok?

I ask because I wasn't sure if we should leave 3.5.0 in here, or remove 
it entirely.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 23:30     ` Mike Stump
@ 2004-09-09 23:36       ` Joseph S. Myers
  2004-09-10  0:15         ` Daniel Berlin
  2004-09-10 13:00         ` Dave Korn
  2004-09-10  0:00       ` Daniel Berlin
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Joseph S. Myers @ 2004-09-09 23:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Stump; +Cc: Per Bothner, GCC Mailing List, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Mike Stump wrote:

> I ask because I wasn't sure if we should leave 3.5.0 in here, or remove it
> entirely.

We have 2.96 and 2.97 versions in the database, which track that bugs were 
reported against mainline in given date ranges, though there were no such 
releases.  But in the present instance the database seems to have been 
bulk converted from 3.5 to 4.0 without keeping such a distinction in the 
reported versions.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
  http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/#c90status - status of C90 for GCC 3.5
    jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
    jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 23:36       ` Joseph S. Myers
@ 2004-09-10  0:15         ` Daniel Berlin
  2004-09-10 13:00         ` Dave Korn
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Berlin @ 2004-09-10  0:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Joseph S. Myers
  Cc: Mike Stump, Per Bothner, GCC Mailing List,
	gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches



On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Mike Stump wrote:
>
>> I ask because I wasn't sure if we should leave 3.5.0 in here, or remove it
>> entirely.
>
> We have 2.96 and 2.97 versions in the database, which track that bugs were
> reported against mainline in given date ranges, though there were no such
> releases.  But in the present instance the database seems to have been
> bulk converted from 3.5 to 4.0 without keeping such a distinction in the
> reported versions.

Wasn't me, :)
I think andrew did it.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* RE: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 23:36       ` Joseph S. Myers
  2004-09-10  0:15         ` Daniel Berlin
@ 2004-09-10 13:00         ` Dave Korn
  2004-09-10 17:51           ` Mike Stump
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Dave Korn @ 2004-09-10 13:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 'Joseph S. Myers', 'Mike Stump'
  Cc: 'Per Bothner', 'GCC Mailing List', gcc-patches

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-owner On Behalf Of Joseph S. Myers
> Sent: 10 September 2004 00:29
> To: Mike Stump
> Cc: Per Bothner; GCC Mailing List; gcc-patches
> Subject: Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
> 
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Mike Stump wrote:


[...ker-snip!...]

> 
> -- 
> Joseph S. Myers               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
>   http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/#c90status - status of C90 for GCC 3.5
                                                                       ^^^^^^^

  Hey!  I just found another bit that needs patching!  8^D

    cheers, 
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-10 13:00         ` Dave Korn
@ 2004-09-10 17:51           ` Mike Stump
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Mike Stump @ 2004-09-10 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dave Korn
  Cc: 'Joseph S. Myers', 'Per Bothner',
	'GCC Mailing List',
	gcc-patches

On Friday, September 10, 2004, at 05:07  AM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Joseph S. Myers               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
>>   http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/#c90status - status of C90 for 
>> GCC 3.5
>                                                                        
> ^^^^^^^
>
>   Hey!  I just found another bit that needs patching!  8^D

Ok, thanks for noticing...  I broke into his machine (boy was that 
easy, it's an unpacthed Windows box) and updated his signature file.


:-)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 23:30     ` Mike Stump
  2004-09-09 23:36       ` Joseph S. Myers
@ 2004-09-10  0:00       ` Daniel Berlin
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Berlin @ 2004-09-10  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Stump
  Cc: Joseph S. Myers, Per Bothner, GCC Mailing List,
	gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches

>
> Ok?
Yup.

>
> I ask because I wasn't sure if we should leave 3.5.0 in here, or remove it 
> entirely.
>

The version no longer exists in bugzilla, so doing that is a bad idea.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

[parent not found: <C8A43CC3-02BB-11D9-B40F-000393941EE6@apple.com>]

* Snapshots?  (was Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0)
       [not found]     ` <C8A43CC3-02BB-11D9-B40F-000393941EE6@apple.com>
@ 2004-09-10  1:16       ` Phil Edwards
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Phil Edwards @ 2004-09-10  1:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Stump; +Cc: Joseph S. Myers, gcc-patches, gcc

On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 04:55:53PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> Checked in as (now) obvious.  The other two are checked in as well, and 
> I don't understand that any more changes are necessary.  Let me know if 
> I got that wrong.

I /thknk/ you got them all.


> maintainer-scripts might need caressing...  I see:
> 
> 43 17 * * 7 sh /home/gccadmin/scripts/gcc_release -s 3.5:HEAD           
> -l -d /sourceware/snapshot-tmp/gcc all
> 
> in crontab, but am unsure if bumping this to 4.0.0 (or 4.0) is 
> correct/wise.

Yes but not yet, would be my vote.


> Also, that would require updating a crontab for 
> gccadmin, whcih I think I just want to punt to the _right_ person...

I can handle the gccadmin part, IIRC.

-- 
To begin the test, pull the power plug from the UPS.  The first time that
you do this, psychologically it won't be easy, but after you have pulled the
plug a few times, you may even come to enjoy it.           - apcupsd manual

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 21:50   ` Joseph S. Myers
  2004-09-09 23:30     ` Mike Stump
       [not found]     ` <C8A43CC3-02BB-11D9-B40F-000393941EE6@apple.com>
@ 2004-09-11 20:55     ` Gerald Pfeifer
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2004-09-11 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Joseph S. Myers
  Cc: Mike Stump, Per Bothner, GCC Mailing List,
	gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> branching.html lists all the places that need changing for new major
> versions (mutatis mutandis for this case where the version number changes
> on mainline without an associated branch).  It is however out of date with
> regard to Gerald's changes to do snapshots from multiple branches; some
> special measures may be needed so that the first 4.0 snapshot has diffs
> from the last 3.5 one (and branching.html should document the applicable
> special measures).

Done thusly.

That won't win a beauty contest, but it works reasonably well.

Gerald

Index: branching.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/branching.html,v
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -3 -p -r1.16 branching.html
--- branching.html	27 Aug 2004 16:13:32 -0000	1.16
+++ branching.html	11 Sep 2004 19:53:17 -0000
@@ -45,14 +45,20 @@ release branch, the current release seri
  <li>Update <code>doc/include/gcc-common.texi</code> on the branch to use
  <code>@clear DEVELOPMENT</code>.</li>

-<li>Update <code>maintainer-scripts/gcc_release</code> on the
-mainline, where it says &quot;# For now snapshots come from the
-mainline.&quot;, to make snapshots come from the branch instead.
-Also update the description of where snapshots come from in
-<code>maintainer-scripts/snapshot-README</code>.
-(Also, <code>cvs update</code> will also need to be run in the scripts
-directory in the <code>gccadmin</code> account, to update the version
-actually called from cron.)</li>
+<li>Update <code>maintainer-scripts/crontab</code> on the mainline by
+adding an entry to make shapshots of the new branch and adjusting the
+version number of the mainline snapshots.
+Run <code>cvs update</code> in the <code>scripts</code> directory of
+the gccadmin account, and then actually install the updated crontab
+there.
+<br />
+Generate the next mainline snapshot manually, using the <code>-p</code>
+option of the <code>gcc_release</code> script.  For that single run,
+adjust the script such that the announcement mail is sent to you
+personally so that you can adjust references to the previous snapshot
+in the  <code>README</code> and <code>index.html</code> files of the
+new snapshot as well as the mail itself before relaying it.
+</li>

  <li><a href="translation.html#regen">Regenerate
  <code>gcc.pot</code></a> and <code>cpplib.pot</code>.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 21:43 ` Mike Stump
  2004-09-09 21:50   ` Joseph S. Myers
@ 2004-09-09 21:58   ` Gabriel Dos Reis
  2004-09-09 21:59   ` Robert Dewar
  2004-09-09 22:19   ` Mark Mitchell
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2004-09-09 21:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Stump; +Cc: Per Bothner, GCC Mailing List, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches

Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com> writes:

| On Sep 9, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Per Bothner wrote:
| > The Steering Committee has decided that the the version number of
| > the next mainline-based tree-ssa-based release should be "4.0".
| > Some people preferred 3.95, but most preferred 4.0, finding
| > Robert Dewar's (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-08/msg01480.html)
| > argument compelling.
| 
| Normally, I would just check this in...  but today, I shall ask for
| approval...
| 
| 
| Ok?

Does it fall under the obvious rule?

-- Gaby

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 21:43 ` Mike Stump
  2004-09-09 21:50   ` Joseph S. Myers
  2004-09-09 21:58   ` Gabriel Dos Reis
@ 2004-09-09 21:59   ` Robert Dewar
  2004-09-09 22:19   ` Mark Mitchell
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 2004-09-09 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Stump; +Cc: Per Bothner, GCC Mailing List, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches

Mike Stump wrote:

> On Sep 9, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Per Bothner wrote:
> 
>> The Steering Committee has decided that the the version number of
>> the next mainline-based tree-ssa-based release should be "4.0".
>> Some people preferred 3.95, but most preferred 4.0, finding
>> Robert Dewar's (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-08/msg01480.html)
>> argument compelling.
> 
> 
> Normally, I would just check this in...  but today, I shall ask for 
> approval...

Ah, does that have to be unanimous approval? :-)


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 21:43 ` Mike Stump
                     ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2004-09-09 21:59   ` Robert Dewar
@ 2004-09-09 22:19   ` Mark Mitchell
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 2004-09-09 22:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Stump; +Cc: Per Bothner, GCC Mailing List, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches

Mike Stump wrote:

> On Sep 9, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Per Bothner wrote:
>
>> The Steering Committee has decided that the the version number of
>> the next mainline-based tree-ssa-based release should be "4.0".
>> Some people preferred 3.95, but most preferred 4.0, finding
>> Robert Dewar's (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-08/msg01480.html)
>> argument compelling.
>
>
> Normally, I would just check this in...  but today, I shall ask for 
> approval...

Yes, this is OK -- but please do work with Joseph/Gerald to make sure 
that any other issues that Joseph raised are dealt with.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-09 18:52 SC decision on version numbering: 4.0 Per Bothner
  2004-09-09 19:05 ` Zack Weinberg
  2004-09-09 21:43 ` Mike Stump
@ 2004-09-10  1:18 ` Giovanni Bajo
  2004-09-10  2:21   ` Mark Mitchell
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Giovanni Bajo @ 2004-09-10  1:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Per Bothner; +Cc: gcc

Per Bothner wrote:

> The Steering Committee has decided that the the version number of
> the next mainline-based tree-ssa-based release should be "4.0".

This is mostly obvious, but previously SC decided that X.Y versions would have
to be called X.Y.0 for consistency. So, here we are speaking of "4.0.0", unless
something changed in that regard (but I wouldn't see why).

Giovanni Bajo


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  2004-09-10  1:18 ` Giovanni Bajo
@ 2004-09-10  2:21   ` Mark Mitchell
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 2004-09-10  2:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Giovanni Bajo; +Cc: Per Bothner, gcc

Giovanni Bajo wrote:

>Per Bothner wrote:
>
>  
>
>>The Steering Committee has decided that the the version number of
>>the next mainline-based tree-ssa-based release should be "4.0".
>>    
>>
>
>This is mostly obvious, but previously SC decided that X.Y versions would have
>to be called X.Y.0 for consistency. So, here we are speaking of "4.0.0", unless
>something changed in that regard (but I wouldn't see why).
>  
>
Yes, I think 4.0.0 is what we mean.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2004-09-11 19:56 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-09-09 18:52 SC decision on version numbering: 4.0 Per Bothner
2004-09-09 19:05 ` Zack Weinberg
2004-09-09 22:10   ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-09-09 22:22     ` Per Bothner
2004-09-09 22:39       ` Robert Dewar
2004-09-09 22:52         ` Per Bothner
2004-09-09 23:10           ` Robert Dewar
2004-09-09 22:49       ` Phil Edwards
2004-09-09 21:43 ` Mike Stump
2004-09-09 21:50   ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-09-09 23:30     ` Mike Stump
2004-09-09 23:36       ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-09-10  0:15         ` Daniel Berlin
2004-09-10 13:00         ` Dave Korn
2004-09-10 17:51           ` Mike Stump
2004-09-10  0:00       ` Daniel Berlin
     [not found]     ` <C8A43CC3-02BB-11D9-B40F-000393941EE6@apple.com>
2004-09-10  1:16       ` Snapshots? (was Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0) Phil Edwards
2004-09-11 20:55     ` SC decision on version numbering: 4.0 Gerald Pfeifer
2004-09-09 21:58   ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-09-09 21:59   ` Robert Dewar
2004-09-09 22:19   ` Mark Mitchell
2004-09-10  1:18 ` Giovanni Bajo
2004-09-10  2:21   ` Mark Mitchell

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).