From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-16 15:04:54
on Sun Oct 07 2007, Edward Diener <eldiener-AT-tropicsoft.com> wrote:
> Jeff Garland wrote:
>> Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>>
>>> I must say I feel very similar.
>>>
>>> I believe Bemans approach is way too pessimistic. And kinda deminishing to the
>>> configuration he has no direct access to ;) How VC 8.0 failure is more
>>> critical than let's say gcc on sparc solaris? Assuming that both have similar
>>> tester resources.
>>
>> They haven't typically had similar resources. We've usually had 2-3 VC
>> 8 testers and maybe one gcc on solaris.
>>
>>> What I beliee we need is more objective criteria for what is "release
>>> compiler". Specific requirements to number of testers and testing turnaround
>>> time comes to mind.
>>
>> Instead of getting bogged down in trying to define requirements, I think
>> we should simply agree on a the 'primary platform list' (essentially
>> what Beman is doing). Don't think of this list as release compilers,
>> just a good cross section of the platforms that provide a) good testing
>> support and b) high standards compliance -- thus minimizing the typical
>> hackery needed to port to this compiler. Again, no compiler/platform is
>> being excluded from testing and we want library authors and people with
>> an interest in a platform to continue to port at their discretion -- but
>> I hope by now we'd all agree that bugging authors of new libs to port to
>> VC6 and holding the release is a bad policy because it harms more users
>> than it helps.
>
> From an end user's perspective I think it is really important, for a
> given release and library of Boost, to know whether or not a particular
> compiler is supposed to work for a particular library. The regression
> tests do not, unfortunately, always give the end user that
> information.
I agree with Edward that that information is crucial and currently
lacking.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com