on Mon Aug 05 2013, Daniel James
On Tue, 6 Aug 2013, at 05:16 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
on Mon Aug 05 2013, Daniel James
wrote: On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, at 02:12 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
I don't see why bumping a compiler requirement from one set of antiques
to another slightly more recent set of antiques is an issue that needs to be suspended for a long time with so much red tape as user surveys.
It's hardly a bureaucratic nightmare. It will probably require less effort than this thread. I think I have a good idea what the answer will be, but it'd be good to check. The survey was just a vague suggestion for the future ("at some point") that will probably never be picked up, although I do think it'd be helpful. We really don't have enough information about our users.
Now I'm really confused. Are you saying we should take a survey right away, before making any such change, or that we should make the change and then do the survey "at some point" in the future, or...?
When I said "survey" I didn't mean a single mail to a mailing list, I meant an online survey with several questions (which version of boost do use, how often do you upgrade, which libraries do you use, how big is your code base, do you read the lists, if boost were a horse which breed of horse would it be). That would have to be done over a longer period of time to try to get it seen by as many people as possible.
OK, makes sense. Apaloosa, BTW. -- Dave Abrahams