Re: [boost] Release numbering

Subject: Re: [boost] Release numbering
From: Jens Weller (JensWeller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-15 20:18:39

> Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Dezember 2013 um 14:26 Uhr
> Von: "Henrik Sundberg" <storangen_at_[hidden]>
> An: boost_at_[hidden]
> Betreff: [boost] [Boost] Release numbering
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Henrik Sundberg <storangen_at_[hidden]
> > >wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > > I've been pecking away at "Getting Started with Modular Boost
> > Library Maintenance".
> > > >
> > > > Comments?
> > >
> > > 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.
> 
> Next major revision could be when a C++ version is not officially supported
> anymore. E.g., when no testers exist.
> 
> /$
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 

Yes, boost 2.0 seems like the right idea. For long term, for now theres still 1.56 - 1.99 available in the meanwhile...
So, while we are at an important milestone, I'd like to see some ideas and goals named for 2.0 before moving to it.
wxWidgets just got to the 3.0, and well, I kinda miss the difference between 2.9 and 3.0, they don't even got C++11 really on board.

So, boost is in my opinion on a good way to get to its 2.0 release, but IMHO it should be more then just being on git.
Also, earlier this year, there was the idea stated on this mailinglist, that 2.0 could be about a C++11/14 boost version, embracing the new and upcoming standards.
But I'm not sure about that idea, as I think that boost shouldn't maintain two different branhces (one for the future, one for the past).

Also, look at Qt, they released a year ago Qt5, but still maintain the 4.x branch, what happens to boost 1.xx after 2.0?
Bugfixes should be maintained for both branches if you're doing it right imho.

Well, not that easy I guess, but just my 2 cents...

kind regards,

Jens

P.S. why not use C++Now (aka boostcon) next year to get the goal for 2.0?