Re: [boost] Release numbering

Subject: Re: [boost] Release numbering
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-14 09:03:01

On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 8:32 AM, John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> > Will the first Git release of Boost be 2.0? If not; why?
>>>
>>> + 1
>>>
>>> Why don't you start a separate thread so your suggestion gets the airtime
>>> it deserves?
>>>
>>
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> I think the Git transition is a good time for 2.0.
>> This would somewhat make it easy to understand what part of the history to
>> look for in Subversion. The Git transition is major for Boost.
>>
>
> How about numbering releases YYYYMMDD - so for example the next might be
> 20140201 or whatever...
>

IMO the date is less useful that the traditional numbering scheme, which
coveys useful information like if it is a point release, regular release,
or major release, and allows you to easily see how many release separate
two regular releases.

--Beman