Subject: Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compilerrequirements.
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-06 09:18:39
on Mon Aug 05 2013, Daniel James <daniel-AT-calamity.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2013, at 05:16 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> on Mon Aug 05 2013, Daniel James <daniel-AT-calamity.org.uk> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, at 02:12 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> Now I'm really confused. Are you saying we should take a survey right
>> away, before making any such change, or that we should make the change
>> and then do the survey "at some point" in the future, or...?
> When I said "survey" I didn't mean a single mail to a mailing list, I
> meant an online survey with several questions (which version of boost do
> use, how often do you upgrade, which libraries do you use, how big is
> your code base, do you read the lists, if boost were a horse which breed
> of horse would it be). That would have to be done over a longer period
> of time to try to get it seen by as many people as possible.
OK, makes sense.
-- Dave Abrahams
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk