Re: [boost] Do we still want develop branch?

On 11/6/23 10:15 AM, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:

On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 10:17 AM Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:

...

Apparently, no one is responsable for maintaining the test script. Maybe can fix that.

Indeed...https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost//2017/07/237250.php

I don't remember seeing this, but I guess it addresses my original question. I did try to promote the idea that boost tools be subjected to the same development requirements as boost libraries regarding: reviews, tests, documentation, etc.... But the idea didn't catch on. I also tried to organize a effort to get take a more formal approach to implementation of CMake support. That idea also fizzled. Peter stepped up and unveiled solution as a fait compli implement CMakeLists.txt in all the boost libraries. So job was done. Or was it. I already had CMake build/test implemented in my libraries so I assumed that the official one was more or less similar. I didn't think about it much after that. Recently I came to understand that the current boost usage of CMake doesn't include the tests. Wow - what is the point of that? If we eliminated b2 and depended totally on CMake then ... we be running no tests and we'd have no disputes about testing/CI . The normal boost development procededure would have caught this requirement oversite at the beginning. Sooo... I renew my periodic and probably pointless exhortation to start subjecting our tools to the same standard that we demand of of our libraries and implement procedures to guarantee that. Robert Ramey