Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [test] Boost.test failures in develop
From: Adam Wulkiewicz (adam.wulkiewicz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-06 05:27:45

Raffi Enficiaud wrote:
> Le 05/10/15 23:50, Adam Wulkiewicz a écrit :
>> [snip]
>> This is so untrue. I don't know how the majority of the industry works
>> but at least in a part I know about the reality looks different than you
>> think. Believe it or not but there are companies which are bound to
>> c++03 simply because they're shipping some major version of a product on
>> a particular OS comming with a specific compiler.
> It also happened to me, but what works best in that case what is to
> stick to a specific version and backport the fixes, which is much
> easier (because selective) than sourcing a new version of boost with
> hundreds of changes. If they need a new version, they first test if it
> works for them and increment their version if everything is alright.
> Companies that heavily depend on a setup do that: they have to control
> the build environment totally, which means also the specific versions
> of their dependencies. There is a little bit of a control in
> production environments, and the desire of upgrading is less important
> than the overall functional stability of the products.
>> And in the same time
>> they want the latest Boost features and bugfixes so they're compiling
>> against develop branch of a library.
> I strongly disagree on the fact that develop branch has some contract
> with end users. Develop branch has mainly a testing and packaging
> value wrt. other libraries of boost, so the merges to master are
> cleaner and the potential coupling of libraries is properly handled.
> If some end user wants the latest bug fixes from develop branch, it's
> his choice to have a code that potentially breaks his/her code.
> I would say it is also the same for master. I believe there is a big
> release effort at every release of boost to get things done properly,
> and this effort is not performed in between. Also the bug fixes are
> hardly announced nor published, and until there is no announcement,
> there is no commitment from boost side. So it is up to the end users
> if they want to upgrade from master: they might source a code that
> might break a contract.

Maybe I shouldn't use develop branch in my example, sorry for confusion.
My point is that there are users out there who are forced to compile
against c++03 and the latest Boost version. Or as in the example going
even beyond this.



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