Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?

Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-06 11:34:30

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On
Behalf Of
> Daniel James
> Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 2:00 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
> 
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]>
wrote:
> >
> > By "stuff," I assume Paul meant "libraries," as in "no new libraries
accepted into Boost
> unless warning free."  That's fair, if it is established and known before a
review begins.
> 
> Currently, we don't even require that a library builds on any specific
> compilers, let alone warning free. What you're suggesting adds a
> considerable burden on a developer - which is particularly unfair if
> the library is eventually rejected. Implementation issues can be fixed
> after the review and, in this case, I would hope it would be with the
> help of the boost community.

I wasn't suggesting that all this needs to be done pre-review - but before
'stuff hits the streets' it should be done.

But as John says, fixing while you are going along doesn't really take much
effort.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, UK   LA8 8AB
[phone], mobile [phone]
pbristow_at_[hidden]