Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> I can do that. Should we start a new branch for things that would go
>> into a hypothetical 1.30.1? My feeling is that we should just keep
>> using the RC_1_30_0 branch, since it's already been tagged where the
>> release was made.
>
> Sounds reasonable. Which makes me wonder if we shouldn't change the
> naming of branches a bit:
>
> We should have a branch for the development of new versions (1.30.x),
> let's call it DEVELOP_1_30_x. On this branch, we can now add several
> tags: Version_1_30_0_RC_1, Version_1_30_0_RC_2, Version_1_30_0,
> Version_1_30_1_RC_1, Version_1_30_1_RC_2, Version_1_30_1_RC_3,
> Version_1_30_1, etc.
I'd prefer shorter names:
v1_30-branch
v1_30_0rc1
v1_30_0rc2
v1_30
...
> This would IMHO be an easy, straight-forward system which allows us to
> tag/create "real" release-candidates (like Beman already did for the
> current release but manually IIRC) and both the .0 version and
> bug-fix-versions - all in one "correctly"-named branch. Comments?
It's just an internal naming change that's not hugely exposed even to
developers, so I don't feel strongly about it.
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
