Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:
Changes I'd like to see include:
* Add Microsoft VC++ 9.0. This is now the most current version. * Drop Microsoft VC++ 7.1. Supporting two versions (9.0 and 8.0) is about all we can afford. * Drop the Intel compiler on Windows. Not enough people seem to care about this compiler/platform.
Other suggestions?
In proposing additions, please remember that each added compiler costs us resources such as developer's time, and that our regression report processing system is easy to overload. Also, we won't accept a new platform unless someone is willing to run *daily* regression tests for it.
I'd like to bring the following idea for discussion: Besides mainstream platforms, additional, more exotic platforms can be provisionally included into the supported set *provided that* they are associated to a volunteer *platform champion*. A platform champion will * Make sure there's a daily regression test for the platform (either run by her or some other party). * Continuously scans the platform-specific regressions and trac tickets in every Boost library, studies them and proposes tried patches. For a reasonably conformant compiler, this is actually not as hard to do as it might sound, as many fixes (in my experience) are very local in nature and can be fixed without having any deep knowledge of the code being fixed. I've done my share of fixing for MSVC 6.0 and can attest this. The point is that in fixing platform-specific glitches it is way more valuable to have someone with knowledge of and access to the platform than someone with knowledge of the lib itself. * Is available for answering question on the platform and try tests and stuff on demand. If the champion resigns or is not able to keep a high quality level on the platform, the platform is dropped. Does this make sense? Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo