Boost logo

Boost :

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-15 09:48:06

From: Stefan Seefeld <seefeld_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart wrote:
> > From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> >>Stefan Seefeld <seefeld_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >>
> > 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
> compatibility).


> 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

I suggested using "simple numbers" only as major version
numbers. Boost does release patches to release builds, hence the
current discussion as to whether there would be a 1.33.1. I
contend that version should be 33.1.1.

> (such as redhat, debian, etc.) to roll their own bug-fix releases,
> and let those care for compatibility issues to satisfy their customers.

As Neal pointed out, any versioning they might choose to do would
be outside the dashes.

Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer           
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at