Re: [boost] Should we still be testing GCC 2.95.3?

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-08 22:34:44

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 21:45:49 -0500, 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?

NOT supported means to me the following:

1) No regression tests are run against the compiler
2) No new libraries will be ported to the compiler/platform
3) Existing libs can remove work-arounds in code 

The big one, to me, is #1 because it removes work for testers and library
authors.  

> Maybe we ought to be instituting a firmer notion of what "supported"
> means.

Agreed.

Jeff