From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-06 13:21:47
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> 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' ?
I agree, the use of the "1." is questionable. However, we could reserve
2.x.y for a version of Boost that does not contain any workarounds for
ancient, non-conforming compilers, or for a similar clean-cut scenario.
> 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.
A user needs to have an indication of the branch. Even if it isn't ABI
compatible, it still is (at least supposed to be) API compatible. There
could be a reason to release 1.y.1 after 1.y+1.0 was released..
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk