From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-29 03:05:15
David Abrahams wrote:
> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > David Abrahams wrote:
> >> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> > David Abrahams wrote:
> >> >> [Boost.Build guys, do we need to rename the BBv2 prerelease so this
> >> >> 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.
I am not sure about it, since boost-build is hidden insides the sf download
page, and download instructions for boost tell only about single package.
> >> which IMO doesn't clearly indicate prerelease status. Furthermore,
> >> 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.
The problem with this naming is that it often jumps. If previous release was
0.14 and next one is 0.91, does it mean the application became 9 times
better? Or there's some other meaning.
Sequental numbering of releases better represents progress.
I was meant actually saying that if we'll use "alpha" quite soon anyway, then
confusion that the "m" naming will cause is quite small. OTOH, chaning
version naming right now will confuse V2 users. As a net result, I'd prefer
to keep the current scheme.
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