Re: [boost] Breaking existing libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Breaking existing libraries
From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-21 13:45:11

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 1:29 AM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> on Fri Nov 21 2008, "Dean Michael Berris" <mikhailberis-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:47 PM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree that testing needs to be made more regular and thorough.
>>> However, IMO the universe of compilers and libraries is much too large
>>> --- and in some cases, the software is too expensive --- for us to check
>>> code with new versions of *all* compilers and *all* libraries.  We need
>>> to select a subset against which we'll test.
>>>
>>
>> I think we're forgetting here that although BoostPro offers commercial
>> support for Boost releases in the form of consulting and enterprise
>> support, it's all really a matter of how much volunteers can really
>> give as far as committing resources is concerned.
>
> Not really.  The whole point of Boostpro Enterprise is that addressing
> those issues does *not* rest solely on the shoulders of volunteers.
>

I think I mis-stated (or was misunderstood here).

I meant that although paid support is available, the continued
development and evolution of the open source version of the Boost
release is by and large a volunteer effort -- as well as the support
that comes in the form of mailing list discussions.

This is by no means a problem, but it's rather a huge constraint on
what can be reasonably expected from a largely voluntary effort -- the
development, submission, review, distribution, and maintenance of the
libraries is a volunteer effort and these are by no means trivial in
terms of resource requirements. It's actually surprising that despite
Boost C++'s being a volunteer-developed/supported software product the
community manages to churn out great libraries bar none.

However we live in a world where even the largest most resource-rich
developers/companies aren't able to produce 100% bug-free code 100% of
the time (or do 100% perfect transitions from older versions to newer
versions of released tools/libraries) and that this reality is
something we have to take into account for in the processes we employ
and actions we take. We will not be able to please everyone, but it
should be reasonable to expect (both from the users' and developers'
perspective) that we will strive to not surprise everyone with
surprise/undocumented/breaking changes or insane (?) backward
compatibility requirements.

It's a good thing that BoostPro is there to help those who will pay
for the services they offer. Having said this, it does not change that
the testing and development of the libraries (and the distribution) is
still largely voluntary.

-- 
Dean Michael C. Berris
Software Engineer, Friendster, Inc.