Subject: Re: [boost] Release numbering
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-15 21:11:06
On Dec 15, 2013, at 8:18 PM, "Jens Weller" <JensWeller_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> Will the first Git release of Boost be 2.0? If not; why?
>>> + 1
>> 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.
There are a number of such changes that could warrant major version changes.
> 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).
I can see both sides of that argument.
> 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.
Boost can maintain the older branch as long as there are maintainers, but there's no obligation when all, or even most, have moved on.
I think Boost can be a little freer with the major version number. After all, we're still on 1 after all these years.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk