Re: [boost] Breaking existing libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Breaking existing libraries
From: Vicente Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-24 10:29:27

David Abrahams-3 wrote:
> 
> 
> on Sun Nov 23 2008, "vicente.botet" <vicente.botet-AT-wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> 
>> Daniel Walker has expresed this better
>> "Once accepted, the tests
>> should be a verification that the library does what the community
>> voted on. The tests are a verification of quality. At that point, I
>> think it might be a good idea to quarantine the tests, take them out
>> of the authors hands, and put them under the stewardship of a
>> benevolent dictator of boost as a whole so that they can be used to
>> assure that the library does what the community voted on.
>> "
> 
>> If we need to change while we make evolulion on a library this is a
>> symptom the interface has changed and the same way the test is broken,
>> the user code canbe broken. If we forbid this test changes, we are
>> able to identify breaking changes.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I just don't think anything like this is going to work.
> Among other things, I think it will be a huge pain for existing library
> authors (suppose I want to _add_ something to a test?) and will deter
> people from contributing to Boost, and I don't think you're going to get
> a positive consensus on it among existing contributors.  This seems like
> an overreaction to one person's failure at disciplined management of
> library evolution.
> 
> Rather than set up systems that will decrease agility, increase
> coupling, and give contriutors the sense that the Boost community
> doesn't trust them to do what's right, suppose we set up a mailing list
> to which all the test checkins are posted?  Then anyone who wants to
> monitor the evolution of a library's tests can subscribe to that list.
> 
> -- 
> Dave Abrahams
> BoostPro Computing
> http://www.boostpro.com
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 
> 

Hi,

I'm soory I didn't want to forbid nothing to the authors. The fact I used
'we' and 'forbid' was misleading.
Mi intention was other, please reconsider my phase as follows:"
If the author need to change while he makes evolulion on his library this
could be a
symptom the interface has changed and the same way the test is broken,
the user code could also be broken. If the author forbid himself to changes
the test from the preceding version, he will be able to identify early
breaking changes."

Don't you think that an author would practice this himself for his own
convenience?

Vicente
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Breaking-existing-libraries-tp20605440p20663004.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.