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

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

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

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.