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? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
