Subject: Re: [boost] Release numbering
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-16 13:24:07
On 12/14/2013 09:03 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
> 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.
I agree. My main concern with the current numbering scheme is that the
current 'major' number is entirely meaningless. There is absolutely no
concern for compatibility between releases 1.X and 1.(X+1), so making a
distinction between 'major' and 'minor' seems a little pointless. Thus I
think that a switch to 2.0 would reinforce a notion of a metric that
Thus, I'm still thinking that the best change in numbering would be to
remove the '1.' prefix (and it really is nothing but a common prefix !),
and continue to number with a 'flat' scheme N, N+1, N+2, ...
So, the next version would be 56, not 1.56. And if there is a need for a
'minor bugfix release', that could then be captured in an exceptional
56.1 number. But please, get rid of the redundant leading '1.' !
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk