Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] What Should we do About Boost.Test?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-18 15:23:04

Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> Robert Ramey <ramey <at>> writes:
>> One small point: I had this problem many years ago which prompted me
>> to (reluctantly) sever dependency of serialization library from that
>> of Boost.Test. It didn't totally solve my problem because the same
>> issue occurred to some extent with other libraries.
> It appear that given your approach to test against releases, you can
> actually use Boost.Test if you opt to.

I realized this immediatly when I switched my testing setup to
trunk - serialization / release - everything else. And I considered
going back to boost test. But by that time, there was no incentive.

>> It was unavoidable
>> since I was testing the serialization library with other software
>> in the boost trunk - which by definition/custom is experimental.
>> I realized that the real solution was to test the serialization
>> library changes against the rest of boost on the release branch. It
>> permited developers of prerequisite libraries from having to deal
>> with me.
> My point exactly.

Halleluhah - so I've one more person on board with this. That
makes 3 so far - only 97 more to go!!!

It's been some time since I used Boost Test. My complaint
was that it wasn't idiot proof enough. I think this is the
crux of the current complaint. Calls for "re-doing" boost
test are sort of naive in my opinion and don't account
for the huge amount of effort it takes to make something
like this.

Having said that, I guessing that "re-factoring" and
"re-doing the documention" might be feasible and practical.
This could be made easier by upgrading boost tools
and practices.

Stay tuned as I will have a lot so say and demonstrate
on ths topic in the near future. I'm sure you can all hardly

Robert Ramey

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at