GDB version numbering

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?

Ubuntu do something like this.  It would mean that
infrequent users would start
to realise how old their versions were and, hopefully,
result in fewer out of
date bug reports.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.n
z/~nickrob

> 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

 > > 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.

 > 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.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.n
z/~nickrob

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.
>
>   

> 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+

Indeed. What do others think?

-- 
Joel

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 12:25:34PM -0700, Joel Brobecker
wrote:
> > 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+
> 
> Indeed. What do others think?

I think that moving the source code repository into the open
marked a
fundamental change in the timeline of GDB, and changing to
the GPLv3
will make at best a small bump.  GPLv3 is a big deal spread
out over
the whole GNU project, but not a big deal for GDB in
particular.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

On 10 July 2007 20:26, Joel Brobecker wrote:

>> 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+
> 
> Indeed. What do others think?

 "Bikeshed".

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

> > >    GDB 7 is GPLv3+
> > >    GDB 6 is GPLv2+
> > 
> > Indeed. What do others think?
> 
> I think that moving the source code repository into the
open marked a
> fundamental change in the timeline of GDB, and changing
to the GPLv3
> will make at best a small bump.  GPLv3 is a big deal
spread out over
> the whole GNU project, but not a big deal for GDB in
particular.

100% agreement.

> From: "Dave Korn" <dave.kornartimi.com>
> Cc: "'Nick Roberts'" <nickrobsnap.net.nz>, 	<gdbsources.redhat.com>
> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:42:23 +0100
> 
> >>    GDB 7 is GPLv3+
> >>    GDB 6 is GPLv2+
> > 
> > Indeed. What do others think?
> 
>  "Bikeshed".

You mean, the color of it, right?