On 7/2/07, Scott McMurray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 02/07/07, Matias Capeletto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do you guys think that the version of the packages are wrong to. > > > > We are using: > > boost_docs_07_07_01 > > > > I find > > boost_docs_2007_07_01 > > a little verbose. > > > > > On 7/2/07, Scott McMurray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I prefer 4-digit years, personally. > > Another option might be boost_docs_20070701, which is ISO-compliant, > though compliance there is really not important. It does keep the > full year I like while not being longer than the current one, but it > does lose a bit of readability.
I think I will change it to boost_docs_2007_07_01 Again because of quickly spotting the year. Thanks you guys! One of the objectives of the project is to showcase best practices and that includes using existent standards. Please be around to bother me with this kind of stuff. Best regards Matias ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
