Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Daniel James (daniel_james_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-07 07:00:36
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Daniel James wrote:
>> 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.
> It isn't unfair if the submitter understands a policy a priori.
How does understanding an unfair burden in advance make it fair?
> Furthermore, proving Boost quality and readiness, for a review,
> means meeting Boost coding policies, whatever they might be.
> If a potential submitter finds following a policy too onerous
> before a review, what might be found too burdensome after
Supporting setups other than your own is much easier after acceptance as
you have access to the testing system and the support of the community.
> Whether such a warnings policy is ever made official is completely
> separate; whatever policies are established, it is fair to expect
> submitters to follow them
Not really, if those policies have no bearing on the quality of the
library then they don't have to be a review requirement. They can be met
between review and release. Requiring warning free code at the review
is just box ticking.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk