Re: Do we still want develop branch?

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-11-06 19:44:11

On 11/6/23 10:15 AM, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 10:17 AM Robert Ramey via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> Apparently, no one is responsable for maintaining the test script.
>> Maybe can fix that.
> 
> Indeed...https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost//2017/07/237250.php
> 

I don't remember seeing this, but I guess it addresses my original question.

I did try to promote the idea that boost tools be subjected to the same 
development requirements as boost libraries regarding: reviews, tests, 
documentation, etc....  But the idea didn't catch on.

I also tried to organize a effort to get take a more formal approach to 
implementation of CMake support. That idea also fizzled.  Peter stepped 
up and unveiled solution as a fait compli implement CMakeLists.txt in 
all the boost libraries.  So job was done.  Or was it.  I already had 
CMake build/test implemented in my libraries so I assumed that the 
official one was more or less similar.  I didn't think about it much 
after that.  Recently I came to understand that the current boost usage 
of CMake doesn't include the tests.  Wow - what is the point of that? 
If we eliminated b2 and depended totally on CMake then ... we be running 
no tests and we'd have no disputes about testing/CI .  The normal boost 
development procededure would have caught this requirement oversite at 
the beginning.

Sooo... I renew my periodic and probably pointless exhortation to start 
subjecting our tools to the same standard that we demand of of our 
libraries and implement procedures to guarantee that.

Robert Ramey