From: dirk_griffioen (diddekio_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-28 15:40:41
--- In jamboost_at_[hidden], David Abrahams <gclbb-jamboost_at_m...>
> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_c...> writes:
> > David Abrahams wrote:
> >> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_c...> writes:
> >> > David Abrahams wrote:
> >> >> [Boost.Build guys, do we need to rename the BBv2 prerelease
> >> >> confusion doesn't recur?]
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure what you propose. V2 releases are
called "Milestone X",
> >> > which IMO, clearly indicates it's not yet 2.0-final.
> >> Actually, on SF, they're just called "boost-build-mX",
> > Actually, boost-build-2.0-mX
> OK. "2.0" means pre-release to those in the know about BB, but will
> confuse people just trying to get started with Boost.
> >> which IMO doesn't clearly indicate prerelease status.
> >> there's no reason a Milestone couldn't be a final release.
> >> boost-build-v2aX would more-clearly indicate prerelease status.
> > Does "a" stands for "alpha"?
> > In my plans, we'd have a 2-3 more milestone
> > releases and only then call V2 "alpha".
> Even more reason to change the naming then.
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
True, the different versions are confusing.
Its not, however, the naming of the releasese that creates it I feel,
but much more the different versions of the documentation (you can
get different versions from cvs, a boost_??.zip, a boost-build-
??.tar.gz). And there's BBv1.
Once that's cleared up, it's sort of straight forward
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk