On 10/5/2015 1:51 PM, 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?
If your library is depended on by upteenth other Boost libraries plus who knows how many other end-users, many of whom's use will be broken by your change, don't you think it behooves you to think that your change may not be the best thing to do ? If CMake were changed to only support builds where C++11 mode was being used, don't you think you might here about from your end-users ? I know that would be a ridiculous change, but I hope I have made my point.
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?
3) Why make users change their code to use 'Test2' instead of 'Test', and then to 'Test3' in the future?