Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify tiers of support for compilers #156

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Aug 19, 2023
Merged

Clarify tiers of support for compilers #156

merged 6 commits into from
Aug 19, 2023

Conversation

chiphogg
Copy link
Contributor

We'll provide 3 tiers: full support, best effort, and assumed support.
The new doc explains what these 3 tiers mean.

The motivation behind this division is in part due to my experience
working on mpusz/mp-units#300. That project got stalled for multiple
months because I couldn't iterate locally on an issue we encountered
with the MSVC compiler (which turned out to be a compiler bug!).
Therefore, the compilers which do let us iterate locally get the
highest level of support. Next up is "anything we can make a CI job
for", including several Windows/MSVC configurations. We plan to keep
these passing always, although a time might come when something in this
tier gets dropped because it's too painful to maintain. The final tier
is "assumed support", which is just what it sounds like.

I also added the new badgest to the README.md. I thought about adding a
section for compiler support, but it didn't flow well, and besides,
everybody understands more or less what the badges mean --- we can
revisit this if and when any of them ever start failing.

Fixes #144.

We'll provide 3 tiers: full support, best effort, and assumed support.
The new doc explains what these 3 tiers mean.

The motivation behind this division is in part due to my experience
working on mpusz/mp-units#300.  That project got stalled for multiple
months because I couldn't iterate locally on an issue we encountered
with the MSVC compiler (which turned out to be a compiler bug!).
Therefore, the compilers which _do_ let us iterate locally get the
highest level of support.  Next up is "anything we can make a CI job
for", including several Windows/MSVC configurations.  We plan to keep
these passing always, although a time might come when something in this
tier gets dropped because it's too painful to maintain.  The final tier
is "assumed support", which is just what it sounds like.

I also added the new badgest to the README.md.  I thought about adding a
section for compiler support, but it didn't flow well, and besides,
everybody understands more or less what the badges mean --- we can
revisit this if and when any of them ever start failing.

Fixes #144.
@chiphogg chiphogg added the release notes: 📝 documentation PR affecting library documentation label Jul 28, 2023
@chiphogg chiphogg requested review from tobin and johnzoppina July 28, 2023 01:53
-Edited punctuation
-Clarified text in the last paragraph of "Continuing your journey"
Headers -> Sentence case
Copy link
Contributor

@johnzoppina johnzoppina left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One suggestion, + some header revisions

docs/index.md Outdated
@@ -15,6 +15,10 @@ These pages will be most useful as you begin your Au journey:
What else is out there? This page gives a detailed comparison to some of the most prominent other
C++ units libraries.

- **[Supported Compilers](./supported-compilers.md).** Au aims to work with _any_ C++ compiler with full
support for C++14 or later. That said, some platform/compiler combinations have more detailed
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"with...with"

How about,

Au aims to work with any C++ compiler that fully supports C++14 or later.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done.

Copy link

@connorjak connorjak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good docs changes! I agree that the badges are enough in the top readme.

@chiphogg chiphogg requested a review from johnzoppina August 5, 2023 15:57
Copy link
Contributor

@johnzoppina johnzoppina left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me

@chiphogg chiphogg merged commit 5ea956e into main Aug 19, 2023
@chiphogg chiphogg deleted the support#144 branch August 19, 2023 01:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
release notes: 📝 documentation PR affecting library documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Test basic functionality for wide variety of platforms/compilers
4 participants