From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20309 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2007 17:20:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 20301 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jul 2007 17:20:17 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:20:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5EBB2AA45F; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:20:08 -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 brF1IbiFP+q7; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:20:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F9922AA423; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:20:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7CE0FE7B54; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:22:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:20:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB version numbering Message-ID: <20070709172235.GA3876@adacore.com> References: <18066.2956.730647.124877@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18066.2956.730647.124877@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00066.txt.bz2 > 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