Boost logo

Boost :

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.


(Sent from my portable computation engine)

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