Re: GDB version numbering

[Andrew Cagney <cagney@redhat.com>]

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.
>
>