Subject: Re: [boost] Breaking existing libraries
From: Richard Hadsell (hadsell_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-21 10:47:57
Dave Handley wrote:
> I'm going to have to very strongly disagree here. Depending on the
> usage of boost, checking a new version is often not a trivial process,
> and the vast majority of companies have other priorities for their
> software developers. My last company worked in shrink-wrapped
> software, and we had a policy that we would tag the new versions of
> all libraries just after our major annual release to give plenty of
> bed-in time before our next major release. In my current job though,
> using a new version of boost involves rebuilding an entire library
> stack, some of which is outside our direct control. Also stability is
> highly important, much more so that working on the latest and
> greatest. Therefore, we have a tendency to move to the latest version
> of boost when we actually need a new feature. As such we've skipped
> 1.30, 1.31, 1.32, 1.34, 1.35, 1.36.
I totally agree with this.
Furthermore, Boost's current beta release schedule would only find
bugs. It would be too late for beta testers to argue against
intentional changes in the libraries.
Boost libraries should either maintain backward compatibility or mark
themselves with a "user beware -- for experimental use only" caveat.
-- Dick Hadsell 914-259-6320 Fax: 914-259-6499 Reply-to: hadsell_at_[hidden] Blue Sky Studios http://www.blueskystudios.com 44 South Broadway, White Plains, NY 10601
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk