From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-11 09:53:33
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:25:37 +0100, Pavel Vozenilek wrote
I appreciate the sentiment of trying to save time, but unfortunately I believe
the 'branch' approach creates the opposite result. As ugly as the code for
the old compilers is, it is still easier to maintain than 2 branches.
> ...lots o stuff snipped...
> Why this may work:
> - all existing infrastructure (the tests) could be reused
> w/o change.
Not true. Tests in date-time adapt themselves based on the config so that
some tests are excluded/automatically failed for some compilers without
actually compiling the code. Other libraries may need similar changes to
support your proposal.
>...more details snipped...
> - new libraries will be added into Boost 1.XX and may
> or may not contain legacy compilers support
> (as it is now). They will be eventually added into
> Boost 2 in 'clean state'.
I believe this is the best idea in your post. I would be fine if new
libraries ignore regression tests for old compilers. I think we already have
a way of marking this in the regression tests, but this might be a way of
saving the folks that run the regression tests time. And this would have the
effect of freezing boost at the current level for users of old compilers.
Over time this might become a significant incentive to move forward.
> Hopefully most libraries are rather mature and don't
> go through major rewrites. Even if so, making clean
> version should be relatively painless.
I don't think you can assume this. For example, there is still work on smart
pointers which have been around forever.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk