[boost] Re: Boost 1.31 release?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-12 07:57:37

Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> I worry a little about requiring library authors not to regress on
>> compiler combinations they don't test with.  
>
> Well, the regressions are run daily, so testing happens. Another
> question is whether library authors care about how their libraries perform
> on all the compilers the regressions are being run on.
>
> Obviously, some compilers/configurations are included in the regression
> testing because the ones who manage the latter are the ones who are 
> most interested in those. Then, again, obviously, some compilers/
> configurations are included in the regressions because they are very 
> widely used.
>
> For every release, the interested parties include library authors, 
> regression runners, the release manager, the maintenance wizard, and of 
> course active users who are subscribed to either of the lists.
>
> Given the above "setup", the implied interests of the participating 
> groups, and their explicit and implicit responsibilities and gratitude
> towards each other, I think striving for "no regressions" goal I stated 
> above would be both a reasonable and fair strategy which can be made to
> work.

Some people are posting regressions for pre-release compilers.  Should
a library author should be expected to keep his library healthy on
some weird/broken compiler just because it happened to work there by
chance at one point?

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