Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-05 16:34:56

Peter Dimov wrote:
> 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.
> The number itself can be arbitrary, 35 is just the logical extension of our
> traditional way of numbering releases. We can even use names such as gregor3
> or witt2. One drawback of using the date is that you don't know it yet when
> you need to create the release branch.

As proposed, there isn't any release branch. There is just a tag for the
release on the "stable" branch.

But that begs the question of knowing the release number in advance so
it can appear in documentation, constants in headers, etc. Thus your
point is well taken.


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