Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-03 13:01:22

> Let me say, that I'm quite upset about the rude way, how Gennadij decided
> force a whole bunch of Boost developers (including me) to invest their
> _now_, even if they had not planned to spent their time on this at this
> moment.

I did not force you to do anything right now. IMO failing test case is just
a reminder that something need to be done, preferably this release. This
situation similar to MT locking: any sinchronization leeds to delays, but
bring safety.

> I for my part didn't even know, that BOOST_TEST was depreciated
> (where is this documented?). Changing such a central part without further
> notice isn't the right way to go!

For a long time if was on front page of Boost.Test lib

> We're all volunteering in Boost and it's unecessary to put additional
> onto everybody here, simply ignoring possible time constraints other
> may have.

Yes. We all have our contraines (one of mine is that I should minimize
period of time I making changes in Boost.Test). I chould've made an
anouncement, and wait a week, but for some reason I think it may not leed
to smaller number failures once I actually do the change. Or should I wait
until everybody had time to make changes in their code?

> Nevertheless I have some questions regarding this change:
> - Is there any documented migration path from BOOST_TEST? Perhaps a
> way to do it?

Does the section "Depricated tools" here:

is a what you want?

> - Is there a version number associated with the test library, which I can
> use to handle this change correctly in my code, even in between different
> Boost versions (we'll need some time until V1.33 get's out of the door, I
> assume)? I still have to support older versions of Boost for some time.

I am not sure what you ask here. 1.32 had BOOST_TEST next one wouldn't


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at