On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf <mar...@trippelsdorf.de> wrote: > On 2014.07.29 at 19:14 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> On July 29, 2014 6:45:13 PM CEST, Eric Botcazou <ebotca...@libertysurf.fr> >> wrote: >> >> I think that if anybody has strong objections, now is the time to >> >make >> >> them. Otherwise I think we should go with this plan. >> > >> >IMHO the cure is worse than the disease. >> > >> >> Given that there is no clear reason to ever change the major version >> >> number, making that change will not convey any useful information to >> >> our users. So let's just drop the major version number. Once we've >> >> made that decision, then the next release (in 2015) naturally becomes >> >> 5.0, the release after that (in 2016) becomes 6.0, etc. >> > >> >I don't really understand the "naturally": if you drop the major >> >version >> >number, the next release should be 10.0, not 5.0. >> >> 10.0 would be even better from a marketing perspective. > > Since gcc is released annually why not tie the version to the year of > the release, instead of choosing an arbitrary number? > > 15.o
Personally I would prefer that we retain the ability to make more rapid releases. Ian
