From: Johan Nilsson (r.johan.nilsson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-05 02:30:14
Rene Rivera wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Phil Richards wrote:
>>> Fine, but why skip to 35?
>> '35' because it's going to be the 35th major release of Boost.
>> Put differently, what I'm saying is that Boost can no longer pretend
>> to be a library instead of a compilation.
>> A release should merely be a collection of library versions that
>> have been tested together and known to work.
> From a successful vendor who releases such "packages", Ubuntu Linux
> uses what seems to make more sense, dated version number. The latest
> release being 7.04, for April 2007.
>From another successful vendor (who does not release similar collections),
Perforce tag their versions with <year>.<release>, e.g. 2007.1 for the first
release in 2007. In addition to this, they also use the the latest change no
(whatever that is in SVNish) to identify the bugfix level, e.g.
Using such a scheme would lessen the chance of having to rename a release
branch due to a missed date (as compared to the year.month approach). Simply
versioning Boost by using the previous minor version as the major naturally
wouldn't suffer from that problem, but for some reason that option just
doesn't feel correct.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk