Re: [boost] boost.test regression or behavior change (was Re: Boost.lockfree)

Subject: Re: [boost] boost.test regression or behavior change (was Re: Boost.lockfree)
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-05 19:55:46

On 10/5/2015 7:18 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
> 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 ?

Corrected:

"If CMake were changed to only support builds where C++11 mode was being 
used, don't you think you might hear about it 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?