From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5593 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2004 03:20:28 -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 5581 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2004 03:20:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 30 Aug 2004 03:20:27 -0000 Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id i7U3IlbR010170; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 05:18:48 +0200 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id i7U3Ilie010169; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 05:18:47 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Release numbering References: <10408300112.AA22774@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: <10408300112.AA22774@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> Organization: Integrable Solutions Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg01448.txt.bz2 kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes: | I'd like to re-raise the issue of whether the next release should be | 3.5 or 4.0. | | There seems to be a fundamental disagreement here as to numberings. | | Despite Mark just saying that "The tree-ssa changes are a huge perturbation", | he doesn't feel it's large enough to justify a move to 4.0 due to not having | enough user-visible changes. I must confess that I got quite confused by the other mail. I believe we should take a consistent approach to the tree-ssa merge. It can't be said that is a huge pertubation -- one that is disruptive in the sense that it causes huge projects going on and disagreements about developers about when to branch -- and at the same hold that it does not justify a new major release numbering. | A large number of other people on this list | agree with that view. | | Others, including me, Robert Dewar and a different large number of people | on the list, feel that the internal changes are enough to justify the | version number change because we want to give users notice that this is | a major change. The change in Fortran is also a large user-visible change. Agreed. | We've been through this discussion on the list a number of times and have | not come to any conclusion. I doubt we can, so I'm not suggesting we | start discussion on this size list. | | However, I believe that this is a large enough issue that it should be | raised before the entire SC and see what conclusions they come to. It is voting time? If yes, I vote [yes] to call the next major release 4.0. | So I'd like to request that the SC take up this issue. -- Gaby