From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22494 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2004 23:07:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 22447 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2004 23:07:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Sep 2004 23:07:07 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D457FF2D13; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 19:07:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 00230-01-2; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 19:07:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [81.254.154.120]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9DEBF2D12; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 19:07:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <41413670.9040101@gnat.com> Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 23:10:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Per Bothner Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0 References: <4140A3D3.9@bothner.com> <87d60vmg08.fsf@codesourcery.com> <4140D5FE.2010107@bothner.com> <41412F82.1040402@gnat.com> <4140DDF3.9000905@bothner.com> In-Reply-To: <4140DDF3.9000905@bothner.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nile.gnat.com X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00541.txt.bz2 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.