From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-23 12:11:10
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Thu Mar 22 2007, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld-AT-sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> on Thu Mar 22 2007, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld-AT-sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>> I didn't find any answer when I asked the last time, so I'm asking again:
>>>> What is the meaning of the absolute number of 'regressions' ?
>>> Tells us how many regressions there are?
>> What is the reference point ? The last report ? The last release ?
> It's supposed to be the last release, IIUC.
>>>> Did this number really go up
>>>> from the last report to the current one ?
>>> I don't know.
>> But this is at the heart of the question: If the simple addition of
>> a new test run changes the number of failures, how can this number
>> possibly represent regressions ? Does anybody even know what test
>> runs were accounted for at the point the last release was done ?
> IIUC, yes.
I believe part of my confusion stems from the fact that the status
report labels all 79 failures as 'regressions', while the html
report marks the majority of them yellow, i.e. as
"Failure on a newly added test/compiler."
So which one is it ?
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
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