Re: [boost] Re: Problem with KAI C++ and boost::type_traits

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-23 13:47:19

Daniel Frey <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> I can do that.  Should we start a new branch for things that would go
>> into a hypothetical 1.30.1?  My feeling is that we should just keep
>> using the RC_1_30_0 branch, since it's already been tagged where the
>> release was made.
>
> Sounds reasonable. Which makes me wonder if we shouldn't change the
> naming of branches a bit:
>
> We should have a branch for the development of new versions (1.30.x),
> let's call it DEVELOP_1_30_x. On this branch, we can now add several
> tags: Version_1_30_0_RC_1, Version_1_30_0_RC_2, Version_1_30_0,
> Version_1_30_1_RC_1, Version_1_30_1_RC_2, Version_1_30_1_RC_3,
> Version_1_30_1, etc.

I'd prefer shorter names:

    v1_30-branch
    v1_30_0rc1
    v1_30_0rc2
    v1_30
...

> This would IMHO be an easy, straight-forward system which allows us to
> tag/create "real" release-candidates (like Beman already did for the
> current release but manually IIRC) and both the .0 version and
> bug-fix-versions - all in one "correctly"-named branch. Comments?

It's just an internal naming change that's not hugely exposed even to
developers, so I don't feel strongly about it.

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