Stefan Seefeld wrote:
Hi there,
now that the 1.33.1 release is out, I'd like to bring up again a topic that was discussed (or at least, touched) previously.
I see two issues with the current release numbering scheme:
1) What is currently the major version number appears to have lost all its meaning. Why isn't it dropped, making the next release '34' instead of '1.34' ?
I agree, the use of the "1." is questionable. However, we could reserve 2.x.y for a version of Boost that does not contain any workarounds for ancient, non-conforming compilers, or for a similar clean-cut scenario.
2) As was previously stated here, there is no attempt to make versions x.y.z and x.y.(z+1) binary compatible. From a user's perspective there is therefor no difference between version y.(z+1) and (y+1), neither in terms of features, nor in terms of time between releases. I therefor suggest to drop the last component, too. Releases therefor become simply a simple sequence 34, 35, ... This obviously doensn't have any impact on any branching policies, or release planning. It only affects the user's perception of releases and how they relate to each other.
A user needs to have an indication of the branch. Even if it isn't ABI compatible, it still is (at least supposed to be) API compatible. There could be a reason to release 1.y.1 after 1.y+1.0 was released.. Regards, m Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com