Boost logo

Boost :

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>> 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


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