"Stefan Seefeld" <seefeld@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:466405AF.8060602@sympatico.ca...
Phil Richards wrote:
On 2007-06-03, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote: [about Robert Ramey's suggestion]
I'd like to think about your numbering suggestion above before commenting on the specifics. But I do think that if we are going to change how we number releases, now might be a good time to do it, and it is certainly a good time to talk about version numbering.
And, if there is an intention to change the numbering scheme and release procedure, it might be the time to move to start with a new major number (2.x). It would signify a clean break from the past, and would mean that there wouldn't be some arbitrary "as of version 1.34.1 boost is following the following numbering scheme".
Heh, if this is an opportunity to change the numbering, let's get rid of that 'major version' entirely, i.e. make the next release '35'. There is nothing versions 1.x and 1.y have in common for x != y, so the '1' is completely meaningless at this point.
I don't agree. <major>.<minor>.<patch> scheme has it's virtues. <major> version update occurs rarely. But It may happened. Like for example now if we completely change boost structure. Next major update may be related to the complete rework with Concepts. I would prefer us to start with 2.0.0 Gennadiy