Garrett D'Amore writes:
> If I understand correctly, Stefan's response is that minor/micro
> versions are required because there *can* be incompatible changes in the
> Boost libraries from upstream. That is to say, Boost doesn't guarantee
> binary compatibility, but instead requires developers to code to a
> specific release.
That's what I now found in the BOOST FAQ at
http://www.boost.org/users/faq.html
(How can the Boost libraries be used successfully for important projects?)
Some postings on their mailing lists indicate that their track record for
compatiblity isn't particularly good, even silently breaking compatibility
in micro releases (which seem to be rare, though).
> While this may seem unfortunate, its the way Boost developers work, I
> guess. Its not particularly worse, IMO, than the other problems
> inherent in using C++ when you care about compatibility.
Seems so, yes.
> It certainly doesn't seem reasonable to expect the project team to
> deviate significantly from the release strategy used by the upstream source.
No, as I already said I wouldn't require them to do so. It would only have
been very helpful to document those issues more clearly in the case
materials, because the question inevitably comes up and could have been
answered up front.
> Rainer, are you satisfied with Stefan's response?
I think so, yes.
Rainer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University
