Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: GCC 5.0 Is Expected Next Year

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,303

    Default GCC 5.0 Is Expected Next Year

    Phoronix: GCC 5.0 Is Expected Next Year

    GNU Compiler Collection developers are beginning to come to a consensus that GCC 5.0 will be released in 2015...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTc0NjI

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Where does this crazy version hysteria come from? In the good old days it was version and revision mostly. These days it seems everyone is just trying to reach the highest version number possible. A high version number does not mean that a product is more mature at all. I would much rather have V1.49 because that means someone have revised the darn thing 49 times instead of version 7.2, 8.1, 9.3.
    When one bump a version it used to mean that the entire program was usually rewritten (a version for those who missed that). When you bump a revision it normally means you changed an existing program and usually added new features to it.
    ....I am surprised no one have started using unix timestamps as their version number. ...sigh...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by waxhead View Post
    Where does this crazy version hysteria come from? In the good old days it was version and revision mostly. These days it seems everyone is just trying to reach the highest version number possible. A high version number does not mean that a product is more mature at all. I would much rather have V1.49 because that means someone have revised the darn thing 49 times instead of version 7.2, 8.1, 9.3.
    When one bump a version it used to mean that the entire program was usually rewritten (a version for those who missed that). When you bump a revision it normally means you changed an existing program and usually added new features to it.
    ....I am surprised no one have started using unix timestamps as their version number. ...sigh...
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., always represents major product advances/design changes.

    .1,.2,...,.10,.11, etc., always represented minor improvements and bug fixes.

    .x.y always meant bug fix releases only. [5.1.1,5.49.1, etc.]

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by waxhead View Post
    Where does this crazy version hysteria come from?
    I agree for some projects (like Chrome and Firefox), but for a project that's been around for almost 30 years, complaining about version 5.x seems a bit odd...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanL View Post
    I agree for some projects (like Chrome and Firefox), but for a project that's been around for almost 30 years, complaining about version 5.x seems a bit odd...
    Not really. If you remember, Linux changed their entire version-number structure starting with the 3.0 release. One could argue that it's both better and worse, but I tend to not get caught up in stuff like that.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanL View Post
    I agree for some projects (like Chrome and Firefox), but for a project that's been around for almost 30 years, complaining about version 5.x seems a bit odd...
    I would assume he is objecting to the idea of 6.0 in 2016, 7.0 in 2017, etc. Which would be stupid and pointless.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carewolf View Post
    I would assume he is objecting to the idea of 6.0 in 2016, 7.0 in 2017, etc. Which would be stupid and pointless.
    Indeed, it would be much better if they adopted a more logical scheme, such as 14.07 (July 2014), 15.01 (January 2015), etc. Ubuntu got this right - do you see anyone complaining about their version numbers?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Indeed, it would be much better if they adopted a more logical scheme, such as 14.07 (July 2014), 15.01 (January 2015), etc. Ubuntu got this right - do you see anyone complaining about their version numbers?
    Ubuntu is a distro not a specific application or library. Distro versions are always very abstract as everything they consist of upgrade at different speeds. GCC on the other hand, is an application and library, they do have real information to communicate with a version number. Using a pointless uninformative number would make their versions less informative for absolutely no gain.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    819

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Indeed, it would be much better if they adopted a more logical scheme, such as 14.07 (July 2014), 15.01 (January 2015), etc. Ubuntu got this right - do you see anyone complaining about their version numbers?
    Just what exactly is illogical about the traditional:
    x.y.z
    where
    X = a release that breaks the (API|ABI)
    Y= a feature release that does not break the (API|ABI)
    Z = a bugfix release

    Fill in API or ABI depending upon how strict the project is on the matter.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    130

    Default Why is this even an article ?

    Who cares how do they mark their releases.

    As long as they work.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •