Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Daniel James (daniel_james_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-07 07:00:36
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Daniel James wrote:
>>
>> Currently, we don't even require that a library builds on any specific
>> compilers, let alone warning free. What you're suggesting adds a
>> considerable burden on a developer - which is particularly unfair if
>> the library is eventually rejected. Implementation issues can be fixed
>> after the review and, in this case, I would hope it would be with the
>> help of the boost community.
>
> It isn't unfair if the submitter understands a policy a priori.
How does understanding an unfair burden in advance make it fair?
> Furthermore, proving Boost quality and readiness, for a review,
> means meeting Boost coding policies, whatever they might be.
> If a potential submitter finds following a policy too onerous
> before a review, what might be found too burdensome after
> acceptance?
Supporting setups other than your own is much easier after acceptance as
you have access to the testing system and the support of the community.
> Whether such a warnings policy is ever made official is completely
> separate; whatever policies are established, it is fair to expect
> submitters to follow them
Not really, if those policies have no bearing on the quality of the
library then they don't have to be a review requirement. They can be met
between review and release. Requiring warning free code at the review
is just box ticking.
Daniel