From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-21 14:04:43
Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Well, (a) is non-verifiable, and (b) is hard to achieve (e.g. you
> cannot check "in no way worse" for toolsets that are not tested,
> and "no way worse" might include non-testable things.
OK I'll rephase
a) When the library is as good as the author THINKS he can make it
b) This is easy - when the number of regressions is less than before
the change or there is an improvement and no new regressions.
re b) Naturally, there can be no regression for a compiler that has
never been tested.
> So, we only have test results for trunk and release branch, and
> have to decide of merge from trunk and release branch is OK. All I'm
> asking is whether, assuming I'm otherwise willing to do the merge,
> if I can arrive at this "OK/not OK" decision without any manual
> investigation and comparison of test results?
Hmmm - b) requires some manual investigation / comparison
of test results. So I would still recommend b) for improvements
and a) for new libraries.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk