Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] boost.test regression or behavior change (was Re: Boost.lockfree)
From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-05 16:41:55

Edward Diener <eldiener <at>> writes:

> Nobody is arguing that making mistakes in the 'develop' branch does not
> occur. Gennady's response, however, was not that this was a mistake but
> a chosen decision

This was not a decision at the point I checked in the code, but I am trying
to defend the notion of dropping c++03 in general. Who wants to admit a
mistake - let's make a political statement out of it ;o). Seriously though -
this *is* the subject worth discussing.
> 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.

I wish we can have an established procedure. Introducing new Boost.Test3 or
Boost.Test-c++11 does not look appealing.


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