This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFA: gold version number
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:07:39 -0700
- Subject: Re: RFA: gold version number
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAJimCsG=7Ro1stj8d8Phzi1oFVS+5TOZ0eTFd+t1RS_HYoiS9Q at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Cary Coutant <email@example.com> wrote:
> I've been neglecting gold's version number, which has been stuck at
> 1.11 for ages. I don't really have significant changes anymore that
> would trigger an obvious version number bump, but a
> consistently-incremented version number would still be useful for
> tracking purposes. I suppose I could just remove it and show only the
> binutils version number, but I think it's probably better to keep a
> version number of its own.
> But what strategy should I use for incrementing it? I've thought about
> bumping it just before each binutils release branch is cut, or perhaps
> just after, but I'm not sure how to remind myself to do that at the
> right moment.
> How should the version number distinguish between a release branch
> build and a trunk build? Are there any hooks built in to git or
> automake that would allow commit ids or datestamps to be included
> automatically in the version string?
> Any advice?
I don't have any advice about automatic updates. There must be some
sort of binutils release checklist.
My general feeling is that the version number should change when there
is a significant change in functionality, or when the plugin API
changes in some way. But it's also OK to use it for tracking, of