From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 85253 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2018 08:49:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 82744 invoked by uid 89); 10 Sep 2018 08:49:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=wanted, cut, 81, dated X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:49:38 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6281178AA for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 04:49:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 9cbZOb0sTxVJ for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 04:49:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF311162C8 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 04:49:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6679C83AD6; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 09:49:34 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:49:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: RFC: Changing GDB's version numbering scheme Message-ID: <20180910084934.GB3234@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-SW-Source: 2018-09/txt/msg00256.txt.bz2 Hello, During this year's GNU Cauldron, we discussed the version numbering scheme the GDB project has been following so far, because a number of users were confused by it. At the moment, as you know, GDB's version number is composed of at least 2 numbers (MAJOR.MINOR) with an optional micro version suffix (MAJOR.MINOR.MICRO). During each release cycle, we usually increase the minor number. For instance, since the last release branch was an 8.2 branch, the next GDB release branch is currently expected to be 8.3. The problem with that numbering is that a number of users got confused by that numbering, thinking that all releases made with the same MAJOR number were made from the same release branch. So, they thought for instance that 8.0, 8.1 and 8.2 were made from the same branch. The proposal, to avoid this issue, is to change the version numbering scheme to increment the major version for each release branch. We did not go into too much detail during the discussion, but generally speaking, so part of the proposal below is me extrapolating in terms of some of the details while thinking things through a little more -- please feel free to comment and provide other suggestions. Let's assume that the last release we made had a major version number of (in our case, is 8): (a) The next branch would be gdb--branch (b) Once the branch is cut, we increment the version number on master to be .50.DATE (b) The first pre-release would be numbered "GDB .0.90" [2]. For instance, our next pre-release would be "GDB 9.0.90". If more pre-releases are needed, we would then increase the MICRO number, so "GDB 9.0.91", GDB "9.0.92", etc. Note that additional pre-release are fairly rarely needed (but have occasionally happened, so we need to be prepared to generate them). I'll explain the use of micro numbers after the procedure is laid out (to avoid clogging the general procedure with details) [1]. (c) Once the pre-release is out, the version number gets updated to include the date again, so ".0.90.DATE". (d) The first official release off a release branch would have the MINOR number set to "1". Thus: "GDB .1". Following that principle, our next major GDB release will be GDB 9.1. (e) Once the GDB 9.1 release is made, we switch the branch's version to ".1.90.DATE". (f) The next official release would be ".2". (g) Once ".2" is out, the version number would be set to ".2.90.DATE" again. (h) Same principle if additional releases are needed (".3", etc). [1] One property I wanted to have in the procedure above was to have a consistent minor number for the first official release, so as to know that GDB .1 is always the first official release from branch . Combined with the potential need for multiple pre-releases, and the fact that we want to have increasing version numbers, and dated version numbers in between, the only way I found was to use the .0.9X range. One alternative to using .0.90 for pre-release would be to use .90. It's a shorter version number, and I would be OK with that, but my sense is that it's kind of confusing that a pre-release would have a different major version. [2] Minor note: In the majority of the release cycles, we create the first pre-release right after the branch is cut. However, there have been cycles in the past were we wanted to wait for specific fixes before creating the first pre-release. In those situations, the first pre-release will be ".0.91" instead. I don't think it really is all that important. Thoughts? If we agree, I will update gdb/version.in, and look at the documentation update. -- Joel