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?
>> 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk