Subject: Re: [boost] [1.46.1] Should we try for a point release?
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-03 07:18:27
2011/3/2 Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]>:
> Beman Dawes wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On 28 February 2011 04:27, Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/2011 10:28 PM, Beman Dawes wrote:
>>>>> (2) We would need to be sure that we have a procedure that ensures
>>>>> that fixes for the point release don't get dropped from the next
>>>>> full release.
>>>> Why wouldn't we just use the normal release branch? Then the changes
>>>> would only need to be made once.
> yeah, and while we're at it, why don't we just label it 1.47 ?
... because the second segment of boost versions works as a clock tick
on quarters (of years). So we can estimate the age of a release and
the age of boost itself from that number. Obviously we missed the
opportunity to count decades with the first segment. Maybe we should
increment this digit every quarter of a century ;-) ... representing
the development speed in boost in a majestic manner.
-- Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl] http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk