On 16 Dec 2013 at 8:26, Peter A. Bigot wrote:
A change to the major version number of a software system should indicate a significant increase in value to the user. Though it impacts developers, a management decision to use a new SCM tool should be all but invisible to Boost's users, and does not warrant an exceptional version number change.
Thing is, one of the most often requested "features" for Boost is modularisation. I personally think a 2.0 release should be seriously breaking, with lots of libraries explicitly *removed* from a 2.0 release, but I can see the point of those thinking that mere modularisation is enough for a 2.0. I like a v1.9 release though. It implies "last iteration of the C++98 compatible Boost". Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/