From: Phil Richards (news_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-04 09:50:25
On 2007-06-04, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Phil Richards wrote:
> > And, if there is an intention to change the numbering scheme and
> > release procedure, it might be the time to move to start with a new
> > major number (2.x). It would signify a clean break from the past,
> > and would mean that there wouldn't be some arbitrary "as of version
> > 1.34.1 boost is following the following numbering scheme".
> Heh, if this is an opportunity to change the numbering, let's get rid
> of that 'major version' entirely, i.e. make the next release '35'.
> There is nothing versions 1.x and 1.y have in common for x != y, so
> the '1' is completely meaningless at this point.
Fine, but why skip to 35? 2 is the number that comes after 1, and the
fact that we are currently at 1.34 doesn't mean that 34 means *that*
much. There are only going to be questions about "what happened to
boost 2.x to 34.x, eh?"
Or, in other words, what I said before :-)
-- change name before "@" to "phil" for email
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk