From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-18 09:59:26
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:13:20 +0200, Peter Dimov wrote
> Bronek Kozicki wrote:
> > Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> Because I may want to? Why should I be prevented from supporting bcc
> >> if I so desire? Should I be forced to run my own regression tests in
> >> order to
> >> provide that support?
> > I think nobody is going to prevent you from supporting any compiler you
> > want :> However, I do suggest that *if there is new branch* of boost,
> > many regression tests targeted at old (nonconforming) compilers should
> > be pulled out from this branch.
> That's what I disagree with. I want these compilers to participate
> in the regression tests, so that I can see when I inadvertently
> introduce a regression.
I agree, I don't want the old compilers removed from the regression test sets.
Because, my goal for date_time is to keep the current level of support in the
old compilers. Thus if a new feature is added to the library and it just
works on the legacy compiler that's fine. If there are problems then that
compiler that is noted as failing in the compiler support information and
that's it. This level of support still requires work to avoid breaking
features that are currently working, but not as much as full support. A year
from now, I think we could go to the next step and drop support altogether for
these older compilers -- meaning stop regression testing against the old
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk