From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-22 08:53:48
Martin Wille wrote:
> Johan Nilsson wrote:
>>>> [A bit off-topic] Is it intentional to have the 1.34.1 updates go
>>>> under the RC_1_34_0 branch?
>> Isn't it a bit illogical to have 1.34.1 go under RC_1_34_0 (with emphasis on
>> the trailing zero)?
> Yes, it is. Nevertheless, there's a tradition to do it that way for
> Boost. I hope this will get fixed by the new procedures, too.
Yeah. I think the branch should be called '1_34', since all minor (bug-fix)
releases are spun off of that. Speaking of numbering, we also discussed removing
the leading '1', since it doesn't appear to bear any meaning. And, since there
is no attempt being made to be backward-compatible (neither API nor ABI), a
simple linear numbering scheme appears just natural...
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk