On Apr 29, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote:
>
> On Apr 29, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Eli Friedman wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Author: kremenek
>>> Date: Thu Apr 29 10:30:51 2010
>>> New Revision: 102614
>>>
>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=102614&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Bump Clang version number.
>>
>> Is there an official version number policy somewhere?
>
> No, but there probably should be. I bumped the major number version to
> number to account for Clang's C++ support, which really accrues a major
> overhaul of Sema, etc., since Clang 1.0.
The theory is that we expect clang c++ to be generally usable for 2.8 and that
warrants a "2.0" moniker . Now that 2.7 is out the door, it is reasonable to
bump the #.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
