Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?

Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-09 17:58:51

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Stewart, Robert
>> <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> > Determining whether a policy is unfair is subjective.  If
>> > one considers,
>> > in this case, that zero warnings at some Boost-established warnings
>> > setting is important to demonstrating code quality and to make the
>> > job of reviewers as easy as possible, then it is a fair policy.
>> Alternatively, the reviewers could compile at lower warnings level.
>> Most likely they wouldn't even need to do that, because they will
>> simply build using the author scripts, which will likely produce a
>> build without warnings.
> Either is certainly possible, but if there are established warning levels, it
> is reasonable to expect that level or stricter.

This assumes that a policy that requires warnings to be "fixed" is
desirable or that it will lead to a better Boost (note that I'm not
arguing against disabling warnings in Boost headers.)

Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode