Aleksey Gurtovoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Abrahams wrote: >> Aleksey Gurtovoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> I worry a little about requiring library authors not to regress on >> >> compiler combinations they don't test with. >> > >> > Well, the regressions are run daily, so testing happens. Another >> > question is whether library authors care about how their libraries > perform >> > on all the compilers the regressions are being run on. >> > >> > Obviously, some compilers/configurations are included in the regression >> > testing because the ones who manage the latter are the ones who are >> > most interested in those. Then, again, obviously, some compilers/ >> > configurations are included in the regressions because they are very >> > widely used. >> > >> > For every release, the interested parties include library authors, >> > regression runners, the release manager, the maintenance wizard, and of >> > course active users who are subscribed to either of the lists. >> > >> > Given the above "setup", the implied interests of the participating >> > groups, and their explicit and implicit responsibilities and gratitude >> > towards each other, I think striving for "no regressions" goal I stated >> > above would be both a reasonable and fair strategy which can be made to >> > work. >> >> Some people are posting regressions for pre-release compilers. Should >> a library author should be expected to keep his library healthy on >> some weird/broken compiler just because it happened to work there by >> chance at one point? > > You skipped the part of my original posting which explicitly said: > >> > 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.
Still, lots of weird/broken compilers are non-beta. IMO all the Borland tools fall into that category. Lots of people consider supporting older versions of released compilers to be unneccessary. I don't always agree, but for example I recently dropped CWPro7 support from Boost.Python, IMO with justification. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
