Re: [boost] Re: Boost 1.31 release?

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-12 18:18:52

David Abrahams wrote:
> >> Misha and Aleksey -- I think we really need to distinguish those
> >> failures from real regressions in the chart somehow or we'll never be
> >> able to tell where we stand.
> >
> > Well, it was assumed that when adding a new compiler one should use
re-run
> > the regressions against the previous release and report the current
status
> > using _those_ expected results.
>
> Many tests might have worked on the new compiler "by chance" with the
> previous release.  It isn't fair to demand that maintainers to fix
> bugs on compilers they haven't agreed to support.

I am not sure how your remark is related to this particular sub-thread, but
I agree, actually.

On the other hand, some of the compilers which the library author(s) might
be indifferent to are of some interest to the regression test maintaniners
and some number of users. It would be unfair to _not_ to give them a chance
to keep those supported by a small amount of cooperation on everyone's side.

Aleksey