Thomas Witt wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
I'm all for dropping the leading 1.
Yes it is meaningless, but is it worth the effort? Personally I don't think so, we have bigger fish to fry.
I have to admit that I don't have any idea of the efford. I would guess it is a single configuration item in some Jamfile or somesuch.
I do think the 2nd number should be retained to reflect the branch. There's always a chance we'll release (1.)34.0 and later find we want to release (1.)33.2
Agreed, we do need a way to identify patch releases. There is a clear distinction between the kind of changes allowed in a 1.X and a 1.X.Y release.
Yes, though these questions only concern the release management (i.e. developers). I do understand David's point. If the timeorder of releases doesn't match the evolution of a single branch, keeping a single number would be confusing to users. Regards, Stefan