From: Douglas Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-08 22:33:50
On Jan 8, 2006, at 9:45 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
> "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 19:50:14 -0500, Douglas Gregor wrote
>>> On Jan 8, 2006, at 7:18 PM, Beman Dawes wrote:
>>>> I could just mark all the failures as expected, but if no one
>>>> cares anymore
>>>> then we ought to stop testing 2.95.3, free up the testing resources
>>>> and stop
>>>> pestering Boost developers about 2.95.3 failures.
>>> Seems like a good idea. Let's get rid of 2.95.3.
>> I concur -- it's time to drop support for this old thing.
> Again I have to ask: what does it mean for Boost to support (or not) a
> particular compiler?
In my opinion, it means:
1) We have consistent testing resources verifying the status of
Boost on that compiler, e.g., the nightly regression tests that OSL
is running for GCC 2.95.3
2) The platform is marked as "required" in the explicit-markup-
failures.xml file, so tests for that library need to either run
correctly, marked unusable, or marked as an expected failure.
3) The platform will be listed as "Supported" for releases (see the
bottom of the main Boost page).
Actually, #1 and #2 are the criteria I used for creating the list of
supported compilers, which is new as of the 1.33.x series.
> Maybe we ought to be instituting a firmer notion of what "supported"
Does the above qualify?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk