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: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-06 14:36:05

Rob Stewart wrote:

> 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.

Thanks for sharing your perspective!

Can you qualify what 'all other projects' means?
 
>> 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.

You seem to prefer to punish those people who have already moved with the 
times :). Or would they otherwise have to do something too? 

Anyway, I consider my curiosity satisfied on that one :).

Thanks,

Steve.