Boost logo

Boost :

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-07 12:43:21

On 12/6/05 10:31 AM, "Stefan Seefeld" <seefeld_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 2) As was previously stated here, there is no attempt to make versions x.y.z
> and x.y.(z+1) binary compatible. From a user's perspective there is therefor
> no difference between version y.(z+1) and (y+1), neither in terms of features,
> nor in terms of time between releases. I therefor suggest to drop the last
> component, too. Releases therefor become simply a simple sequence 34, 35, ...
> This obviously doensn't have any impact on any branching policies, or release
> planning. It only affects the user's perception of releases and how they
> relate to each other.

That next-to-last sentence isn't accurate. We create a new CVS branch when
we prepare a x.y.0 release. All subsequent x.y.z releases are based off
that branch. This is maintained independently of the HEAD where future
x.(y+1) code is developed (before creating a x.(y+1).0 branch). We
definitely want to keep those two types of releases distinct.

Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT hotmail DOT com

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