3 ms·
Why can't they just go with a year based version number like Ubuntu and Windows? $year.$month-$patch so LLVM 5.0 would be LLVM 17.09 (September 2017).
by satysin 10y ago
Why can't they just go with a year based version number like Ubuntu and Windows? $year.$month-$patch so LLVM 5.0 would be LLVM 17.09 (September 2017).
- richardwhiuk 10y agoNice, introduce a bug every century when 00 > 99.
- to3m 10y agoThere are numbers greater than 99. I'd like to provide some examples but I can't find my calculator :(
- user5994461 10y agoThey can just upgrade from 99.12 to 2100.01
- flukus 10y agoThat's someone else's problem. And realistically for most/all software today, never going to be a real problem. Or avoid it entirely and use a 4 digit year.
- satysin 10y agoNo you don't, it isn't an internal data type like Y2K. You just go from (20)99 to (2)100 to (2)101 ...
- slacka 10y agoAs the article stated, LLVM 5.0 should really be called LLVM 5, and isn't it easier to remember and write than 17.09. And IF you do care about the patch level, then it's LLVM 5.1 vs 17.09.1, again I'll take 5.1 any day.