From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-16 01:31:28
on Wed Jul 16 2008, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Here is where we differ. Now when someone checks in a breaking
>>> change. errors pop up all over the place in test results that the
>>> author who caused the problem doesn't have any reason to check.
>>> He who has had his library broken has to investigate the cause
>>> of the sudden breakage and trace down to its source and then
>>> complain. This is a huge pain in the neck and costs a lot of
>>> time and frustration.
>> You're making a big assumption here, which is that the breaking
>> change is a bug.
> LOL - I call it a bug - you can call it a feature. Regardless, it is an
> interface change.
Whether it's announced or not matters a lot, but in this conversation
both you and Emil have consistently failed to make a distinction AFAICT.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk