Let me say, that I'm quite upset about the rude way, how Gennadij decided to force a whole bunch of Boost developers (including me) to invest their time _now_, even if they had not planned to spent their time on this at this moment.
I did not force you to do anything right now. IMO failing test case is just a reminder that something need to be done, preferably this release. This situation similar to MT locking: any sinchronization leeds to delays, but bring safety.
I for my part didn't even know, that BOOST_TEST was depreciated (where is this documented?). Changing such a central part without further notice isn't the right way to go!
We're all volunteering in Boost and it's unecessary to put additional burden onto everybody here, simply ignoring possible time constraints other
For a long time if was on front page of Boost.Test lib people
may have.
Yes. We all have our contraines (one of mine is that I should minimize period of time I making changes in Boost.Test). I chould've made an anouncement, and wait a week, but for some reason I think it may not leed to smaller number failures once I actually do the change. Or should I wait until everybody had time to make changes in their code?
Nevertheless I have some questions regarding this change:
- Is there any documented migration path from BOOST_TEST? Perhaps a standard way to do it?
Does the section "Depricated tools" here: http://www.boost.org/libs/test/doc/components/test_tools/reference/index.htm... is a what you want?
- Is there a version number associated with the test library, which I can use to handle this change correctly in my code, even in between different Boost versions (we'll need some time until V1.33 get's out of the door, I assume)? I still have to support older versions of Boost for some time.
I am not sure what you ask here. 1.32 had BOOST_TEST next one wouldn't Gennadiy