From: AlisdairM (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-02 14:30:49
John Maddock wrote:
> I'd be interested in hearing whether people think a similar approach -
> for some of our projects anyway - would be beneficial for Boost too.
I would be interested in seeing support for some of our infrastructure.
For whatever reasons, boost 1.34 has taken significantly longer to
release than previous versions, and I see no reason to assume that 1.35
will go any more smoothly - lots of new libraries accepted while
testing has focussed on release branch rather than head, the plan to
start testing release as well as debug builds, and talk of moving to an
SVN repository instead of CVS.
I could imagine several small tools to give more consistent automated
results (e.g. something to diagnose build environment rather than rely
on user naming conventions), perhaps enhanced report pages so we can
see warnings, or easily group by platform rather than vendor, or ...
(although Aleksey is already doing some work on report pages)
Are there more automated tools we want to run like the
And again, these or the sort of changes that could have an immediate
impact, even during the SoC project itself - which could be very
positive feedback for the student(s) involved.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk