On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 21:45:49 -0500, David Abrahams wrote
"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> writes:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 19:50:14 -0500, Douglas Gregor wrote
On Jan 8, 2006, at 7:18 PM, Beman Dawes wrote:
I could just mark all the failures as expected, but if no one cares anymore then we ought to stop testing 2.95.3, free up the testing resources and stop pestering Boost developers about 2.95.3 failures.
Seems like a good idea. Let's get rid of 2.95.3.
I concur -- it's time to drop support for this old thing.
Again I have to ask: what does it mean for Boost to support (or not) a particular compiler?
NOT supported means to me the following: 1) No regression tests are run against the compiler 2) No new libraries will be ported to the compiler/platform 3) Existing libs can remove work-arounds in code The big one, to me, is #1 because it removes work for testers and library authors.
Maybe we ought to be instituting a firmer notion of what "supported" means.
Agreed. Jeff