Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Abrahams wrote: >> Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>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 >> ... > > The last one you showed is hopefully a typo.
Yes. > And I'd prefer to have a > separator for the non-releases like the '-' anywhere: > > v1_30-branch > v1_30_0-rc1 > v1_30_0 > v1_30_1-rc1 > v1_30_1-rc2 > v1_30_1 Why? -branch signifies that the tag acts differently, but rc1, rc2 et al are part of the version number. The only reason to use the underscores at all is that version numbers will eventually become ambiguous otherwise. >> It's just an internal naming change that's not hugely exposed even to >> developers, so I don't feel strongly about it. > > I think it's up to Beman to decide what's best as he obviously has > the most trouble with it anyway. :) I'm sure the choice of names is not an obstacle for him. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
