Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Recommend dropping test coverage on msvc-7.1 and msvc-8.0
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-14 17:55:32

On 10/14/2017 12:39 PM, James E. King, III via Boost wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 10/14/17 8:37 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost
>> Not completely related but I have observed that while Boost has
>>> amazing facilities for introducing new libraries (the formal review
>>> process)
>> there is nothing for gracefully retiring old libraries. Or
>> I have a solution to this - as described part of my boost 2.0 talk. But
>> the world isn't ready for me to start flogging it yet.
>> for that matter old toolchains.
>> My point is that selection of toolchains to support and test is upto the
>> library maintainer. There is not communal agreement necessary.
> That would be far too confusing to consumers of the boost library set.
> Each release of the boost library set should have a standard set of
> compilers that are tested.
> If maintainers of each library want to support more compilers, that is
> acceptable and should be documented in the library docs.
> If maintainers of each library want to support less compilers, that would
> not be acceptable.

I disagree with this simply because it is very possible that a given
Boost library will not work at all with a given compiler/version simply
because of the deficiencies of that compiler when used by that library.
Ideally, yes, Boost as a whole should try to support certain modern
compilers/versions across the board. But in practice, for some 130+
libraries this is not tenable.

> In terms of potentially dropping msvc-7.1, my original suggestion was for
> the next whole release cycle.
> - Jim

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