Subject: Re: [boost] Release numbering
From: Cox, Michael (mhcox_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-15 23:16:31
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Jens Weller <JensWeller_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Yes, boost 2.0 seems like the right idea. For long term, for now theres
> still 1.56 - 1.99 available in the meanwhile...
> So, while we are at an important milestone, I'd like to see some ideas and
> goals named for 2.0 before moving to it.
> wxWidgets just got to the 3.0, and well, I kinda miss the difference
> between 2.9 and 3.0, they don't even got C++11 really on board.
>
> So, boost is in my opinion on a good way to get to its 2.0 release, but
> IMHO it should be more then just being on git.
> Also, earlier this year, there was the idea stated on this mailinglist,
> that 2.0 could be about a C++11/14 boost version, embracing the new and
> upcoming standards.
> But I'm not sure about that idea, as I think that boost shouldn't maintain
> two different branhces (one for the future, one for the past).
>
> Also, look at Qt, they released a year ago Qt5, but still maintain the 4.x
> branch, what happens to boost 1.xx after 2.0?
> Bugfixes should be maintained for both branches if you're doing it right
> imho.
>
Does that mean we have separate long-term branch(es) (master/develop pair)
for boost 1.xx in addition to the develop and master we have now? What
would they be named?
Michael