Re: [boost] Boost Development Environment proposal

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-04 12:14:59

"Stefan Seefeld" <seefeld_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:466405AF.8060602_at_sympatico.ca...
> Phil Richards wrote:
>> On 2007-06-03, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> [about Robert Ramey's suggestion]
>>>  I'd like to think about your numbering suggestion above before
>>>  commenting on the specifics. But I do think that if we are going to
>>>  change how we number releases, now might be a good time to do it, and 
>>> it
>>>  is certainly a good time to talk about version numbering.
>>
>> 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.

I don't agree. <major>.<minor>.<patch> scheme  has it's virtues. <major> 
version update occurs rarely. But It may happened. Like for example now if 
we completely change boost structure. Next major update may be related to 
the complete rework with Concepts.

I would prefer us to start with 2.0.0

Gennadiy