Thomas Witt wrote:
Hi,
several recent posts touched the issue of deprecating compilers in the next release.
Given the fact that we don't even seem to know what deprecating means I would like to propose the following:
Compiler support should be phased out instead of dropped. I see three different stages here.
Fully Supported ---------------
Libraries should make an effort to support these compilers. Regressions in support version to version should be avoided. (Weasel wording intended). Full regression testing.
Marked Deprecated -----------------
No effort is required to support these compilers in new functionality. Version to version regressions are accepted after the first version that marked these compilers as deprecated. Full regression testing (if resources are available). One key idea here is to give the user a good idea on the level of available functionality until a toolset reaches the "Unsupported" stage.
Unsupported -----------
No regression testing is done. (Library authors might still support these toolsets for their libraries on a case by case basis.)
AFAICS there seems to be strong support for moving gcc-2.95 and vc6 to "Marked Deprecated" and somebody needs to fight Alisdair over Borland (volunteers? any?).
Comments
Thomas
I think it is an important discussion that is good to have, I just hope I don't lose too much in the process ;?) I would suggest this is more than just a developer question though, this affects boost 'customers' and is probably worth repeating on the Boost user list as well. -- AlisdairM