www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.ldc - Release numbering

reply "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Is it a good idea to change the release numbering of ldc, using 
the same as the D front-end, like "ldc 2.067.2"?

Bye,
bearophile
Aug 20 2014
parent reply "Kai Nacke" <kai redstar.de> writes:
Hi bearophile!
On Wednesday, 20 August 2014 at 09:55:39 UTC, bearophile wrote:

 Is it a good idea to change the release numbering of ldc, using 
 the same as the D front-end, like "ldc 2.067.2"?


LDC releases are not always in sync with the front end version.
E.g. I could imagine a 0.14.1 release with minor fixes and build 
with LLVM 3.5.

Integration of the front end version might be a good idea as it 
can reduce number of bug reports caused by referring to the wrong 
front end version.

Regards,
Kai
Aug 21 2014
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2014-08-21 18:44, Kai Nacke wrote:

 Hi bearophile!
 On Wednesday, 20 August 2014 at 09:55:39 UTC, bearophile wrote:

 Is it a good idea to change the release numbering of ldc, using the
 same as the D front-end, like "ldc 2.067.2"?


 LDC releases are not always in sync with the front end version.
 E.g. I could imagine a 0.14.1 release with minor fixes and build with
 LLVM 3.5.

 Integration of the front end version might be a good idea as it can
 reduce number of bug reports caused by referring to the wrong front end
 version.


You could have version numbers like 0.14.1+2.066.0. In Semver, 
everything after the plus sign is just metadata and doesn't affect the 
version.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Aug 21 2014
prev sibling parent "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Thursday, 21 August 2014 at 16:44:24 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:

 LDC releases are not always in sync with the front end version.
 E.g. I could imagine a 0.14.1 release with minor fixes and 
 build with LLVM 3.5.


I think, the third number would work fine for that.
Aug 21 2014