From: Neal Becker (ndbecker2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-15 08:54:31
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> 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.
I think the convention on Redhat, and probably others, is to use -release.
Just like I did with boost-1.33.0-9.srpm. That is, vendor updates don't
use '.', they use '-'.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk