Re: [boost] on boost version numbers

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-06 11:04:51

Stefan Seefeld <seefeld_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Hi there,
>
> now that the 1.33.1 release is out, I'd like to bring up again a topic that
> was discussed (or at least, touched) previously.
>
> I see two issues with the current release numbering scheme:
>
> 1) What is currently the major version number appears to have lost all its
>     meaning. Why isn't it dropped, making the next release '34' instead of '1.34' ?
>
> 2) As was previously stated here, there is no attempt to make versions x.y.z
>     and x.y.(z+1) binary compatible. From a user's perspective there is therefor
>     no difference between version y.(z+1) and (y+1), neither in terms of features,
>     nor in terms of time between releases.
>     I therefor suggest to drop the last component, too. Releases therefor become
>     simply a simple sequence 34, 35, ...
>     This obviously doensn't have any impact on any branching policies, or release
>     planning. It only affects the user's perception of releases and how they relate
>     to each other.
>
> Comments ?

I'm all for dropping the leading 1.

I do think the 2nd number should be retained to reflect the branch.
There's always a chance we'll release (1.)34.0 and later find we want
to release (1.)33.2

Calling that release 35 would be confusing at best.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com