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.
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?
Regards, Daniel
-- Daniel Frey
aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: http://www.aixigo.de
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
