From: Phil Richards (news_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-06 14:35:21
On 2006-05-06, AlisdairM <alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Russell Hind wrote:
> > Further to the ublas patches, I'd also like to look at back-porting
> > your bcbboost work to the 1.32 branch which would enable us to
> > possibly move to BDS2006 with boost-1.32.x.
> Playing devil's advocate here!
> What is the benefit of doing this in the main Boost CVS, as opposed to
> maintaining another bcbboost_1_32?
> I doubt we are going to see another patched release of Boost 1.32 at
> this point, the regression testing cost alone is likely prohibitive.
There is something else that has to be considered: if you release
bcbboost you don't have to worry about introducing regressions in to the
other, supported, compilers. Your workarounds can be ones that would
*never* be accepted as part of the main boost because of the breakages
they would introduce. As you say, it will be much simpler to QA a
release aimed just at this compiler.
Speaking as somebody who got stuck on a crappy compiler with a specific
version of boost for 3 years, I can sympathise with seeing all the
wonderful new libraries being added to boost and not being able to use
-- change name before "@" to "phil" for email
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk