Re:Llama.cpp v0.1.0
by ggerganov on Monday August 17, 2026 @03:22PM
(#49336277)
Didn't expect this to pop up here - please ignore for now. We are preparing official semantic versioning of llama.cpp and it's almost ready, but not quite.
Re:Llama.cpp v0.1.0
by rpdillon on Monday August 17, 2026 @02:43PM
(#49335722)
Yeah, I think they are strays added by GitHub Actions, they don't line up with the actual version that's tracked inside the source code, which indicates v0.20.1:
Re:Llama.cpp v0.1.0
by wccrawford on Monday August 17, 2026 @03:09PM
(#49336091)
2 releases back:
```
Add a "Create and push git tag" step to the release job, right before
the "Create release" step. The tag is created with git tag and pushed
with the deploy key already configured by the Clone step, instead of
relying on the Releases API (action-create-release) to create it as a
side effect.
The tag is lightweight, matching all existing b release tags.
The step is idempotent: if the tag already exists (e.g. on a re-run),
creation and push are skipped.
```
I think they just haven't configured the TAG part of that properly yet, so it created an incorrect tag the first run.
Re:Llama.cpp v0.1.0
by asveikau on Monday August 17, 2026 @03:01PM
(#49335968)
The github release pages for this project have me wondering who it is for. There are multiple releases per day. Also the Linux release binaries do not compile for CUDA.
It's more reasonable for a lot of people to just follow master and build from source.
I thought I would add a comment asking the maintainers to consider not shipping major version zero, since it basically makes semantic versioning worthless and using SemVer and ignoring this advice basically suggests one wasn't reading it to begin with, but then I asked myself, "Why bother?"
No one seems to take it seriously, and why would my voice matter anyway? I think https://0ver.org shows us the industry doesn't really care about software versioning.
Hell, just drop the pretense and tell people to stick to commit hashes and dates.
More info about the versioning process is here: https://github.com/ggml-org/ggml/discussions/1579
seems like stray tags?
https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/commit/cea66f4c5a17255...
``` Add a "Create and push git tag" step to the release job, right before the "Create release" step. The tag is created with git tag and pushed with the deploy key already configured by the Clone step, instead of relying on the Releases API (action-create-release) to create it as a side effect.
The tag is lightweight, matching all existing b release tags. The step is idempotent: if the tag already exists (e.g. on a re-run), creation and push are skipped. ```
I think they just haven't configured the TAG part of that properly yet, so it created an incorrect tag the first run.
It's more reasonable for a lot of people to just follow master and build from source.
https://github.com/brian-learns/llama_cpp/blob/main/update.s...
No one seems to take it seriously, and why would my voice matter anyway? I think https://0ver.org shows us the industry doesn't really care about software versioning.
Hell, just drop the pretense and tell people to stick to commit hashes and dates.