From: Stefan Seefeld <seefeld@sympatico.ca>
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Stefan Seefeld <seefeld@sympatico.ca> writes:
Boost really should have just released v33.1. Then, a version with FOREACH and whatnot could be 33.2. Any patch release to fix last minute problems with 33.1 would be 33.1.1.
Well, I'm not sure I agree. The problem I see with '1.33' is that it suggests a difference between the number before the dot and after, or, put differently, distinct release cycles for major and minor releases (which typically come with specific semantics as to ABI / API compatibility).
Right.
If you don't want to give any guarantee concerning compatibility between two subsequent releases, you should IMO use simple numbers (32, 33, ...), and leave the 'dot releases' to packagers and distributors
I suggested using "simple numbers" only as major version numbers. Boost does release patches to release builds, hence the current discussion as to whether there would be a 1.33.1. I contend that version should be 33.1.1.
(such as redhat, debian, etc.) to roll their own bug-fix releases, and let those care for compatibility issues to satisfy their customers.
As Neal pointed out, any versioning they might choose to do would be outside the dashes. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;