From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5726 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2007 16:58:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 5716 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jul 2007 16:58:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:58:50 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l6AGwmpC030080; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:58:48 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l6AGwmdT020742; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:58:48 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l6AGwkXp005498; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:58:47 -0400 Message-ID: <4693BACE.3030000@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:58:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070530) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Roberts , Joel Brobecker CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB version numbering References: <18066.2956.730647.124877@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070709172235.GA3876@adacore.com> <18066.47945.530232.677872@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <18066.47945.530232.677872@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00076.txt.bz2 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. > >