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: Rob Stewart (rob.stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-06 04:48:50

On October 5, 2015 1:51:57 PM EDT, Stephen Kelly <hello_at_[hidden]> 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?

That is within the maintainers' rights. The argument is that they are making an ill-informed decision and should reconsider it. There has been much controversy over Boost.Test over the years. It is a much-used library within Boost. Disturbances like this aren't helpful.

> 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? 

Forcing all other projects to make changes is more work than forking the one project.

> 3) Why make users change their code to use 'Test2' instead of 'Test',
> and  then to 'Test3' in the future?

That allows users to opt in to the changes.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)