From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-06 13:13:52
Thomas Witt wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>>I'm all for dropping the leading 1.
> Yes it is meaningless, but is it worth the effort? Personally I don't
> think so, we have bigger fish to fry.
I have to admit that I don't have any idea of the efford. I would guess
it is a single configuration item in some Jamfile or somesuch.
>>I do think the 2nd number should be retained to reflect the branch.
>>There's always a chance we'll release (1.)34.0 and later find we want
>>to release (1.)33.2
> Agreed, we do need a way to identify patch releases. There is a clear
> distinction between the kind of changes allowed in a 1.X and a 1.X.Y
Yes, though these questions only concern the release management (i.e.
I do understand David's point. If the timeorder of releases doesn't match
the evolution of a single branch, keeping a single number would be
confusing to users.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk