RFC: Changing GDB's version numbering scheme

[John Baldwin]

On 11/6/18 2:27 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes:
> 
> Joel> Quick summary of the discussion so far: The only feedback this
> Joel> discussion drew was negative feedback. If you would like to support
> Joel> this proposal, you should speak up; otherwise, I'm inclined to
> Joel> let the matter drop.
> 
> I'm also in favor of it.  Historically I don't think the minor versions
> carried much meaning.  In the new scheme, I suppose the version still
> won't carry much meaning, but at least it won't pretend, and will be
> easy to explain.  Also, it is closer to what GCC does, which I think is
> a plus.

I also probably favor the new scheme for similar reasons to what Simon
articulated which is that there doesn't appear (to me) to be a clear
meaning of major version bumps (e.g. what qualifies gdb 6 vs 7 vs 8).
It seems gdb 7 -> 8 was maybe about switching from C to C++?  I haven't
been around the project long enough to be aware of other major bumps and
what they might have (or have not) signified, but it actually felt that
7.12 -> 8.0 was really about the same relative change as 7.11 -> 7.12 or
8.0 -> 8.1.  In the FreeBSD package we currently treat the major.minor
together as the "real" version number installing the binary as
/usr/local/bin/gdb{711,712,8,81,82} FWIW.

-- 
John Baldwin

                                                                           Â