Re: [boost] boost.test regression or behavior change (was Re: Boost.lockfree)

Rob Stewart wrote:

On October 5, 2015 1:51:57 PM EDT, Stephen Kelly wrote:

...

Edward Diener wrote:

...

But let's just move on. No one is seeking to lay blame on anyone for anything. Lots of libraries use Boost Test which need to be tested in C++03 mode so if Boost Test wants to move forward with a version which only supports testing in C++11 mode in order to use C++11 facilities, which is perfectly reasonable, it should do so as a separate library forked from the current version of Boost Test.

Sorry if someone answered this already, but I'm curious:

1) Why not let Boost.Test define its own requirements? I thought that was a maintainer decision only. I thought that was a core value of Boost?

That is within the maintainers' rights. The argument is that they are making an ill-informed decision and should reconsider it. There has been much controversy over Boost.Test over the years. It is a much-used library within Boost. Disturbances like this aren't helpful.

...

2) Why not let people fork it to Boost.TestLegacyVersion if they want legacy compatibility? Why suggest that the new version be 'the fork'? Why not fork for legacy and drop the legacy when the time for doing that comes?

Forcing all other projects to make changes is more work than forking the one project.

Thanks for sharing your perspective! Can you qualify what 'all other projects' means?

...

3) Why make users change their code to use 'Test2' instead of 'Test', and then to 'Test3' in the future?

That allows users to opt in to the changes.

You seem to prefer to punish those people who have already moved with the times :). Or would they otherwise have to do something too? Anyway, I consider my curiosity satisfied on that one :). Thanks, Steve.