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

Subject: Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compilerrequirements.
From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-05 15:29:06

On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, at 02:12 PM, Stephen Kelly 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' ?

Nothing. Some people may agree, but it was never accepted as a
principle. I don't think it's a reasonable thing to say unless we were
to create stable releases and continue to support them.

> Given that boost is quite explicit that it doesn't guarantee source or
> binary compatibility,

That's irrelevant. And just because something isn't guaranteed, it
doesn't mean that no one cares.

> 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.

It's hardly a bureaucratic nightmare. It will probably require less
effort than this thread. I think I have a good idea what the answer will
be, but it'd be good to check. The survey was just a vague suggestion
for the future ("at some point") that will probably never be picked up,
although I do think it'd be helpful. We really don't have enough
information about our users.

> 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.

"Many libraries" is not the same as "all libraries".

> You don't need user surveys. Please just commit the patches today and
> move on :). Let progress happen and get out of the way :).

You seem convinced that the change will have no effect, so why do you
think people will block it? This is quite a big change, it shouldn't be
rushed. Config needs to be conservative about change, perhaps more than
any other part of boost.