Re: [boost] [Boost] Release numbering

On Saturday 14 December 2013 14:26:10 Henrik Sundberg wrote:

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Beman Dawes wrote:

...

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Henrik Sundberg

...

wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Beman Dawes wrote:

...

I've been pecking away at "Getting Started with Modular Boost

Library Maintenance".

...

...

Comments?

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.

Next major revision could be when a C++ version is not officially supported anymore. E.g., when no testers exist.

I think the transition to git, which is internal to Boost, is not enough to warrant the major version number increment. Such version change typically means major changes in the public interface or other properties visible by users. Granted, there are other examples, like Linux kernel, which switched from 2.6.x to 3.x at an undistinguished release. But when that transition happened, I noticed how every news I read explicitly stated that 3.0 is not actually a major release but an ordinary increment over the previous 2.6.