That rings a bell... but I have to be honest, it's weird...
Now, well, as Rafael said originally, our policy doesn't state how
long we can go (3.10, 3.11 or 3.9 -> 4.0), nor it does *require* that
we change the ABI on (X+1). FWIW, the Linux kernel seems to be going
that way, too.
Whatever works, but it would be good to choose something based on
consensus and document.
cheers,
--renato
I think that is the idea. When the text was written it was just
codifying existing practices (3.0 could read 2.X).
Cheers,
Rafael
I don't see this way: it means that we stop supporting compatibility, even if we don't aggressively remove the auto-upgradecode. It looks like an important decision and we should not take it lightly.
I've split the version discussion off into a new thread ("What version
comes after 3.9?") and CC'd everyone discussing it here so far.
I've sent out a patch to update the docs for this:
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21880
Please take a look.