Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] A proposal for superproject structure and testing
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-12 14:24:12

Cox, Michael wrote:
> Does "local testing * of the submodule*" include running the unit-tests
> of the the other submodules to see if you've broken anything in someone
> elses submodule that depends on yours?

No, it generally does not. Perhaps it ought to, in principle, but as
touching anything in a core (and sometimes not so-core) library triggers a
recompile of nearly all of Boost, it's just not done, at least as far as I
know. I can't speak for all maintainers, of course. Perhaps someone does
test all of Boost on each change. I don't.

> Wow, that's a lot of combinations. Is that the "official" Boost policy,
> i.e. is there a link on the web-site I can read this?

I'm not sure if there is official policy on that. We've mostly been relying
on common sense. What I described was just my experience about what needs to
be done for a reasonably good local test coverage (today). In the past, it
helped to include an EDG-based compiler because EDG was the least permissive
regarding not-entirely-legal C++. Nowadays, g++ is mostly strict enough, but
soon one would need to include clang as well. And of course there are enough
differences between C++03 and C++11 (even if the submodule doesn't have
C++11-specific parts) to warrant testing on both.

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