Re: [boost] Should we still be testing GCC 2.95.3?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-09 17:54:10

Douglas Gregor <doug.gregor_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> Again I have to ask: what does it mean for Boost to support (or not) a
>> particular compiler?
>
> In my opinion, it means:
>
> 	1) We have consistent testing resources verifying the status of  
> Boost on that compiler, e.g., the nightly regression tests that OSL  
> is running for GCC 2.95.3
> 	2) The platform is marked as "required" in the explicit-markup- 
> failures.xml file, so tests for that library need to either run  
> correctly, marked unusable, or marked as an expected failure.
> 	3) The platform will be listed as "Supported" for releases (see the  
> bottom of the main Boost page).
>
> Actually, #1 and #2 are the criteria I used for creating the list of  
> supported compilers, which is new as of the 1.33.x series.
>
>> Maybe we ought to be instituting a firmer notion of what "supported"
>> means.
>
> Does the above qualify?

Yeah, super!
How about making up a webpage so posterity remembers it?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com