GDB version numbering

GDB version numbering

[Nick Roberts]

This is just a suggestion for a scheme for numbering GDB releases.  Joel
has suggested (I think) that the version after next is called 7.0.  Major
number changes, naturally, are generally reserved for major changes. However,
as GDB usually releases fairly regularly, at about six monthly intervals,
the scale of the changes tend to be pretty constant.  So how about making
the _next_ release 7.0 (or 7.1) and subsequent releases as:

2008    8.0    8.1
2009    9.0    9.1
2010   10.0   10.1
etc?

Ubuntu do something like this.  It would mean that infrequent users would start
to realise how old their versions were and, hopefully, result in fewer out of
date bug reports.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob

Re: GDB version numbering

[Joel Brobecker]

> This is just a suggestion for a scheme for numbering GDB releases.  Joel
> has suggested (I think) that the version after next is called 7.0.  Major
> number changes, naturally, are generally reserved for major changes. However,
> as GDB usually releases fairly regularly, at about six monthly intervals,
> the scale of the changes tend to be pretty constant.  So how about making
> the _next_ release 7.0 (or 7.1) and subsequent releases as:
> 
> 2008    8.0    8.1
> 2009    9.0    9.1
> 2010   10.0   10.1
> etc?

Honestly, I don't think this bring any benefit at all. version 10.x
is as cryptic as version 6.x. Perhaps if you had suggested that
we use version 2008, 2009, etc. But even then I don't see any benefit.

I prefer the current numbering scheme. We can keep a 6.x version number
until we have something major happening. The last time, it was the
transition to multi-arch I think. For 7.0, it looks like it will be
python scripting support.

-- 
Joel

Re: GDB version numbering

[Nick Roberts]

 > > 2008    8.0    8.1
 > > 2009    9.0    9.1
 > > 2010   10.0   10.1
 > > etc?
 > 
 > Honestly, I don't think this bring any benefit at all. version 10.x
 > is as cryptic as version 6.x. Perhaps if you had suggested that
 > we use version 2008, 2009, etc. But even then I don't see any benefit.

I don't see how it can be as cryptic.  I know Ubuntu 6.04 is about 15 months
old.  Can you tell me offhand how old GDB 5.3 or GDB 4.18 is?  The benefit
probably isn't great but then there is no expense either.

 > I prefer the current numbering scheme. We can keep a 6.x version number
 > until we have something major happening. The last time, it was the
 > transition to multi-arch I think. For 7.0, it looks like it will be
 > python scripting support.

It will surely be an impressive feat but AFAICS it's still just the work of one
person.  The major number changes seem a little bit arbitrary and perhaps
diminish the work of others who contribute towards a minor number change.
It's not a big deal though, I was just brainstorming a bit.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob

Re: GDB version numbering

[Andrew Cagney]

Nick Roberts wrote:
>  > > 2008    8.0    8.1
>  > > 2009    9.0    9.1
>  > > 2010   10.0   10.1
>  > > etc?
>  > 
>  > Honestly, I don't think this bring any benefit at all. version 10.x
>  > is as cryptic as version 6.x. Perhaps if you had suggested that
>  > we use version 2008, 2009, etc. But even then I don't see any benefit.
>
> I don't see how it can be as cryptic.  I know Ubuntu 6.04 is about 15 months
> old.  Can you tell me offhand how old GDB 5.3 or GDB 4.18 is?  The benefit
> probably isn't great but then there is no expense either.
>
>   

The reason to bump the major version doesn't need to be technical and 
previously hasn't.  For instance, 5.x signified the freeing of GDB's CVS 
repo.  Here, similarly, we've got the GPLv3 change that while 
non-technical is a very major change for GDB;  something worth 
considering as a trigger for a major version number bump:

    GDB 7 is GPLv3+
    GDB 6 is GPLv2+

Andrew


>  > I prefer the current numbering scheme. We can keep a 6.x version number
>  > until we have something major happening. The last time, it was the
>  > transition to multi-arch I think. For 7.0, it looks like it will be
>  > python scripting support.
>
> It will surely be an impressive feat but AFAICS it's still just the work of one
> person.  The major number changes seem a little bit arbitrary and perhaps
> diminish the work of others who contribute towards a minor number change.
> It's not a big deal though, I was just brainstorming a bit.
>
>   

Re: GDB version numbering

[Joel Brobecker]

> The reason to bump the major version doesn't need to be technical and 
> previously hasn't.  For instance, 5.x signified the freeing of GDB's CVS 
> repo.  Here, similarly, we've got the GPLv3 change that while 
> non-technical is a very major change for GDB;  something worth 
> considering as a trigger for a major version number bump:
> 
>    GDB 7 is GPLv3+
>    GDB 6 is GPLv2+

Indeed. What do others think?

-- 
Joel

Re: GDB version numbering

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 12:25:34PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > The reason to bump the major version doesn't need to be technical and 
> > previously hasn't.  For instance, 5.x signified the freeing of GDB's CVS 
> > repo.  Here, similarly, we've got the GPLv3 change that while 
> > non-technical is a very major change for GDB;  something worth 
> > considering as a trigger for a major version number bump:
> > 
> >    GDB 7 is GPLv3+
> >    GDB 6 is GPLv2+
> 
> Indeed. What do others think?

I think that moving the source code repository into the open marked a
fundamental change in the timeline of GDB, and changing to the GPLv3
will make at best a small bump.  GPLv3 is a big deal spread out over
the whole GNU project, but not a big deal for GDB in particular.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

RE: GDB version numbering

[Dave Korn]

On 10 July 2007 20:26, Joel Brobecker wrote:

>> The reason to bump the major version doesn't need to be technical and
>> previously hasn't.  For instance, 5.x signified the freeing of GDB's CVS
>> repo.  Here, similarly, we've got the GPLv3 change that while
>> non-technical is a very major change for GDB;  something worth
>> considering as a trigger for a major version number bump:
>> 
>>    GDB 7 is GPLv3+
>>    GDB 6 is GPLv2+
> 
> Indeed. What do others think?

 "Bikeshed".

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

Re: GDB version numbering

[Eli Zaretskii]

> > >    GDB 7 is GPLv3+
> > >    GDB 6 is GPLv2+
> > 
> > Indeed. What do others think?
> 
> I think that moving the source code repository into the open marked a
> fundamental change in the timeline of GDB, and changing to the GPLv3
> will make at best a small bump.  GPLv3 is a big deal spread out over
> the whole GNU project, but not a big deal for GDB in particular.

100% agreement.

Re: GDB version numbering

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
> Cc: "'Nick Roberts'" <nickrob@snap.net.nz>, 	<gdb@sources.redhat.com>
> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:42:23 +0100
> 
> >>    GDB 7 is GPLv3+
> >>    GDB 6 is GPLv2+
> > 
> > Indeed. What do others think?
> 
>  "Bikeshed".

You mean, the color of it, right? ;-)