Cox, Michael wrote:
Does "local testing * of the submodule*" include running the unit-tests of the the other submodules to see if you've broken anything in someone elses submodule that depends on yours?
No, it generally does not. Perhaps it ought to, in principle, but as touching anything in a core (and sometimes not so-core) library triggers a recompile of nearly all of Boost, it's just not done, at least as far as I know. I can't speak for all maintainers, of course. Perhaps someone does test all of Boost on each change. I don't.
Wow, that's a lot of combinations. Is that the "official" Boost policy, i.e. is there a link on the web-site I can read this?
I'm not sure if there is official policy on that. We've mostly been relying on common sense. What I described was just my experience about what needs to be done for a reasonably good local test coverage (today). In the past, it helped to include an EDG-based compiler because EDG was the least permissive regarding not-entirely-legal C++. Nowadays, g++ is mostly strict enough, but soon one would need to include clang as well. And of course there are enough differences between C++03 and C++11 (even if the submodule doesn't have C++11-specific parts) to warrant testing on both.