Subject: Re: [boost] Release numbering
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-16 09:57:40
On Saturday 14 December 2013 14:26:10 Henrik Sundberg wrote:
> 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?
> 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.
I think the transition to git, which is internal to Boost, is not enough to
warrant the major version number increment. Such version change typically
means major changes in the public interface or other properties visible by
Granted, there are other examples, like Linux kernel, which switched from
2.6.x to 3.x at an undistinguished release. But when that transition happened,
I noticed how every news I read explicitly stated that 3.0 is not actually a
major release but an ordinary increment over the previous 2.6.