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.)
Reverge Studios, Inc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk