Re: [boost] [1.45] Typeof fixed, point release? (was: Boost 1.45 compile error)

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.45] Typeof fixed, point release? (was: Boost 1.45 compile error)
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-23 03:55:55

On 22 November 2010 20:21, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Sorry, let me re-ask.  Can you explain what "that list is based on the
> test compilers" means?  Specifically:
>
> * what list?

The list at the bottom of the release notes, in the 'Compilers Tested' section.

> * what does "based on" mean?  Are you just trying to say "that is a
>  list of the test compilers," or is it something more nuanced?

The 'primary test compilers' are usually the stable releases of
compilers which have been tested against the release branch. Clang is
missing from the list because the compilers used were built from
clang's trunk (this can be seen in the output from the 'config_info'
test), so there are possible differences from the released version.
We've also excluded compilers released during the release cycle, which
haven't received sufficient testing.

Compilers that weren't considered suitable, or are used for testing
trunk are listed as 'additional test compilers'.

We've never had formal rules - this is based on past decisions.

I've got into the habit of compiling the list a little while before
the beta, and then check for changes before the release. I sometimes
exclude compilers which don't seem to be regularly running (it's not
very scientific).

> * what do you mean by "test compilers?"  Compilers actually used for
>  testing?

Yes.

Daniel