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
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
> 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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk