From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-29 06:57:41
Russell Hind wrote:
> I think the current change history for boost releases isn't adequate.
> It appears that libraries get changed (small and big changes) between
> releases but many of these aren't documented. A couple of reasons I'd
> like this to be changed are:
>
> 2. Compatibility. e.g. ublas stopped supporting Borland C++Builder in
> 1.32. In 1.31 we used ublas and then tried to move to 1.32 but there
> was no indication of this in the changes history and this is quite
> important. Significant amounts of time can be invested trying to use
> the new release of boost only to find you can't because one library that
> is core to a user may have been deprecated for that compiler without any
> warning. It seems to me that there is no easy way to tell this for an
> end user. Yes there are reqression test results, but these would
> require the user to look at the regression tests for both 1.31 and 1.32
> and compare the two, but I would expect most end users to ignore the
> regression tests, especially once they are already using a version of boost.
I would especially like to see this second item. For any library it should be
easy to see which compilers/releases are supported. Having to hunt this down in
any other place than that library's documentation, such as in regression tests,
is a PITA.