From: Pavel Vozenilek (pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-11 12:13:51
"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote
> I appreciate the sentiment of trying to save time, but unfortunately I
> the 'branch' approach creates the opposite result. As ugly as the code
> the old compilers is, it is still easier to maintain than 2 branches.
Yes, it is easier to keep with current state now and 'cleanup' would take
many months or couple of years effort. It may (or may not) be outweighted
in future with better maintenability and lower entry barier for users.
> > - 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.
The test may be left unchanged. Config would be used only by them.
> > - 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
> 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
> effect of freezing boost at the current level for users of old compilers.
> Over time this might become a significant incentive to move forward.
I use now BCB heavily and prefere new libraries working there,
if possible. However in few years I'll surely be using conformant system
and then clean code will be advantage.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk