Re: [boost] Boost.test failures in develop

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.test failures in develop
From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-05 16:20:56

Robert Ramey <ramey <at> rrsd.com> writes:

> I think a better way to look at Boost is a collection of more loosely 
> coupled software components.  The only coupling is to a minimal set of 
> of practices and requirements: Compatiblity with C++, Formal Review, 
> directory structure, and documentation requirements.  In this view, 
> there is no place for requiring a specific library for testing, 
> requiring that some particular version of C++ not be supported.

For this we need a process of independent boost.XXX library version-ing and 
release procedures/schedule.
 
> c) I have my whole boost development tree to set to master branch so I'm 
> testing against the next release. Only the serialization submodule is 
> set to develop (or a feature branch).

Unfortunately this is not the way test runners operate
 
> d) Almost most all code is C++11/C++03 agnostic.
> 
> e) Some code is C++11+ specific.  This is conditioned with BOOST_NO... 
> macros.  Some tests are conditioned on these macros as well.

In few cases this can work out like this. In many other cases maintaining 
c++03 compatibility can make library obsolete(I am not talking about my 
library). C++11/C+14 modern C++ code can and *should* look significantly 
different, with different API and implementation
 
> If the author of Boost.Test feels he can't support older compilers, 
> that's his decision of course.  But he should be aware it's going to cut 
> his "market share" and encourage the usage of alternatives.

This statement is conditioned on several big IFs IMO, but I am not going to 
argue.

Gennadiy