Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Breaking existing libraries
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-21 04:32:54

joaquin_at_[hidden] wrote:

> Markus Werle escribió:
>> But let us go back on the we-do-not-pay-for-it path:
>> IMHO it is a severe error of your development process that you do not
>> check your code with new versions of all compilers and all libraries on a
>> *regular* basis. In management parlance: your risk management is defective.
>> It always is a good idea to use the svn repo of boost and the beta version
>> of the next compiler just to see the breaking changes early enough, which gives
>> everyone plenty of time to react.
> On this particular point, I find that beta periods usually gather very
> little
> feedback from actual users of the code, and it is later in time when people
> begin to complain about breaking changes (I'm meaning unintentional breaking
> changes here). Somehow the Boost *users* community seems not to be
> very involved in the release process, and we should find ways to press
> them to
> test betas more thouroughly than it's being done currently. Maybe we can
> begin by proactively sending announce mails to the companies in the
> "Who's using Boost" entry whenever a beta period begins; we'd need a
> contacts list to do that.

Do you think it will work? You basically want users to grab new Boost,
build it, update their source code, and do automatic and manual QA. And
all this during 2-weeks window. And further, if user runs into a bug
he has to fix it, or discuss with Boost developers, and this means maintaining
two branches of the code, which the associated overhead.

So, it's no surprise that many users prefer to wait till release is out,
for quite some time. More publicity for beta will somewhat improve things,
but I suspect we won't get very much testing still. Examining the changes
in testcases might help, but I don't know who's gonna do it.

- Volodya

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at