Re: [boost] [Boost] Release numbering

On 12/14/2013 09:03 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:

On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 8:32 AM, John Maddock 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?

OK.

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 doesn't exist. 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.' ! FWIW, Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...