Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-05 22:27:33
Robert Ramey wrote:
> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> What about companies that *do* use Boost? If we are to prioritize our
>> efforts to provide the best service to them, should we be fixing
>> warnings or improving our testing procedures? Should we be fixing
>> warnings in general or working on tickets?
> Hmmm - not sure there's a huge difference. I get tickets on a
> regular base to fix warning. Some them are even marked "bug" !!!
> So if one strives to have a "zero ticket" policy (or as close
> as possible), you're going to end up with fixnig warnings.
Indeed. But hopefully, this will result in the warnings that are
most annoying to users getting priority.
> BTW - There are warnings in building a library - these
> are different than those generated in headers that users
Agreed. I would like to see all warnings from headers
eliminated eventually. I don't care all that much about
what happens in source files.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk