From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-06 18:52:10
Martin Wille wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>> Hi there,
>> now that the 1.33.1 release is out, I'd like to bring up again a
>> topic that
>> was discussed (or at least, touched) previously.
>> I see two issues with the current release numbering scheme:
>> 1) What is currently the major version number appears to have lost
>> all its meaning. Why isn't it dropped, making the next release
>> '34' instead of '1.34' ?
> I agree, the use of the "1." is questionable. However, we could
> reserve 2.x.y for a version of Boost that does not contain any
> workarounds for ancient, non-conforming compilers, or for a similar
> clean-cut scenario.
How about reserving 2.x for that day in the distant future when every C++ user
can be assumed to have a conforming TR1 implementation?
-- Jonathan Turkanis www.kangaroologic.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk