From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-15 08:43:18
Rob Stewart wrote:
> From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>>Stefan Seefeld <seefeld_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>Then., the name '1.33' somehow suggests
>>>two levels of versions, while really there is only one (by the way: why do
>>>you carry the '1.' around ? Do you expect a 'release 2' at some point ? If
>>>so, in what way would such a release be different from an upgrade from
>>>1.32 to 1.33, say ?)
>>Heh, very good quesion!
> Yes it is. Boost really should have just released v33.1. Then,
> a version with FOREACH and whatnot could be 33.2. Any patch
> release to fix last minute problems with 33.1 would be 33.1.1.
Well, I'm not sure I agree. The problem I see with '1.33' is that it
suggests a difference between the number before the dot and after,
or, put differently, distinct release cycles for major and minor
releases (which typically come with specific semantics as to ABI / API
If you don't want to give any guarantee concerning compatibility
between two subsequent releases, you should IMO use simple numbers
(32, 33, ...), and leave the 'dot releases' to packagers and distributors
(such as redhat, debian, etc.) to roll their own bug-fix releases,
and let those care for compatibility issues to satisfy their customers.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk