Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compilerrequirements.

Subject: Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compilerrequirements.
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-05 10:47:24

on Mon Aug 05 2013, Stephen Kelly <steveire-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> On 08/05/2013 01:46 PM, Daniel James wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, at 01:29 PM, Sergey Cheban wrote:
>>> On 05.08.2013 14:33, Daniel James wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> So I'm inclined to agree to whatever you want ;-)  But perhaps more to
>
>>>>> the
>>>>> point we should be doing whatever our users want - so perhaps it would be
>>>>> better to open up a discussion on boost-users on which compilers we can
>>>>> drop
>>>>> and work from there.
>>>> I'll do that this evening.
>>> I don't think that many of the boost users really read the boost-users 
>>> newsgroup. It would be nice to create a poll at the boost.org site.
>> I'll put a request up on the site, but I don't think a poll is
>> appropriate. Will probably just ask for emails from anyone using older
>> compilers. I'm not sure if people check the site either, but I think a
>> few people are subscribed to the news rss feed and a news item can be
>> linked to.
>>
>> If anyone is feeling keen they could set something up. It might be a
>> good idea at some point to do a survey of boost users.
>
> What happened to 'users of ancient compilers can use ancient boost' ?
>
> Given that boost is quite explicit that it doesn't guarantee source or
> binary compatibility,
>
>  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/237484/focus=237500
>
>  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/237484/focus=237518
>
> I don't see why bumping a compiler requirement from one set of antiques
> to another slightly more recent set of antiques is an issue that needs
> to be suspended for a long time with so much red tape as user surveys.

+1

> Users of ancient compilers can use ancient boost. Given that you have no
> complaints from anyone using an antique with the recent boost releases,
> and given that many people in this thread have repeated that many
> libraries do not work with the antiques and they are not tested anyway,
> you have a good case to assume that the impact of bumping the
> requirement is very low.
>
> You don't need user surveys. Please just commit the patches today and
> move on :). Let progress happen and get out of the way :).

+1

-- 
Dave Abrahams