Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] boost.test regression or behavior change (was Re: Boost.lockfree)
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-05 13:51:57

Edward Diener wrote:

> But let's just move on. No one is seeking to lay blame on anyone for
> anything. Lots of libraries use Boost Test which need to be tested in
> C++03 mode so if Boost Test wants to move forward with a version which
> only supports testing in C++11 mode in order to use C++11 facilities,
> which is perfectly reasonable, it should do so as a separate library
> forked from the current version of Boost Test.

Sorry if someone answered this already, but I'm curious:

1) Why not let Boost.Test define its own requirements? I thought that was a
maintainer decision only. I thought that was a core value of Boost?

2) Why not let people fork it to Boost.TestLegacyVersion if they want
legacy compatibility? Why suggest that the new version be 'the fork'? Why
not fork for legacy and drop the legacy when the time for doing that comes?

3) Why make users change their code to use 'Test2' instead of 'Test', and
then to 'Test3' in the future?



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