Alisdair Meredith wrote: > Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote: > > > While I totally support the failures markup goal, I would like to see > > _the_ release criteria to include "no regressions from the previous > > release" item as well, preferrably for all non-beta compilers that are > > currently under regression testing. Especially since now we have tools > > to ensure it. > > OTOH, it might not always be achievable. > For boost 1.31 we are having an interface breaking change to the > iterator_adaptors, and not all compilers pass all tests with the new > adaptors yet. > > While this may not be a problem for the iterators library (it is > effectively new)
Yes. > it may have a knock-on effect on any other boost libraries implemented > on top of it. And any failures concerned with the interface change per se should be fixed before the release. It might happen that major changes in a library inadvertently cause _functionality regression_ on the particular compiler, but IMO "inadvertently" is a key word here. > > The principle is a good one, but I be prepared to make a few allowances > in the practice. Sure, as long as it's an explicit decision. After all, those could be put in the release notes. Aleksey _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
