Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] boost.test regression or behavior change (was Re: Boost.lockfree)
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-05 19:18:09

On 10/5/2015 1:51 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> 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?

If your library is depended on by upteenth other Boost libraries plus
who knows how many other end-users, many of whom's use will be broken by
your change, don't you think it behooves you to think that your change
may not be the best thing to do ?

If CMake were changed to only support builds where C++11 mode was being
used, don't you think you might here about from your end-users ? I know
that would be a ridiculous change, but I hope I have made my point.

> 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