The timeout on this was extended to Friday Dec. 12.
If I understand correctly, Stefan's response is that minor/micro
versions are required because there *can* be incompatible changes in the
Boost libraries from upstream. That is to say, Boost doesn't guarantee
binary compatibility, but instead requires developers to code to a
specific release.
While this may seem unfortunate, its the way Boost developers work, I
guess. Its not particularly worse, IMO, than the other problems
inherent in using C++ when you care about compatibility.
It certainly doesn't seem reasonable to expect the project team to
deviate significantly from the release strategy used by the upstream source.
Rainer, are you satisfied with Stefan's response?
-- Garrett
On 12/10/08 10:26, Stefan Teleman wrote:
>
>
> Stefan Teleman wrote:
>
>> Given that BOOST has taken considerable care in designing a
>> construction and delivery mechanism which permits non-conflicting
>> coexistence of several versions of BOOST, this seems to have been
>> done for the purpose of avoiding [ mitigating ] incompatibilities
>> between BOOST releases.
>
> More specifically, this:
>
> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_37_0/libs/libraries.htm#Removed
>
> --Stefan
>
