Re: [boost] [Release 1.34] Supported Compilers

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-31 06:49:17

Thomas Witt writes:
> several recent posts touched the issue of deprecating compilers in the 
> next release.
>
> Given the fact that we don't even seem to know what deprecating means I 
> would like to propose the following:
>
> Compiler support should be phased out instead of dropped. I see three 
> different stages here.
>
> Fully Supported
> ---------------
>
> Libraries should make an effort to support these compilers. Regressions 
> in support version to version should be avoided. (Weasel wording 
> intended). Full regression testing.
>
> Marked Deprecated
> -----------------
>
> No effort is required to support these compilers in new functionality. 
> Version to version regressions are accepted after the first version that 
> marked these compilers as deprecated. Full regression testing (if 
> resources are available). One key idea here is to give the user a good 
> idea on the level of available functionality until a toolset reaches the 
> "Unsupported" stage.
>
> Unsupported
> -----------
>
> No regression testing is done. (Library authors might still support 
> these toolsets for their libraries on a case by case basis.)

We can't actually _prevent_ somebody from running regression tests for
an "unsupported" toolset, nor do I think that we want to. I'd say if
one has the resources to run the tests and interested in seeing /
posting the results (however pitiful), they should go right ahead. IMO
"unsupported" status just makes an individual developer's decision to
ignore these results uncontroversial.

-- 
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering