From: Jason Sankey (jason_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-09-06 03:02:21
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Wed Sep 05 2007, Jason Sankey <jason-AT-zutubi.com> wrote:
>> Certainly, this is the idea in general. Software development teams are
>> usually capable of creating their own automated build system, but it
>> costs a lot of labour that is better spent on other things. The only
>> real advantage to rolling your own is the complete customisability. I
>> am confident that a lot of what you need will come out of the box with
>> Pulse. Also, since part of the idea from our end is to push the
>> boundaries of Pulse, we will be available to add features that are required.
>> I can't promise immediate addition of all requested features (it is
>> clearly not practical) but if there are showstoppers we will address
> The main things that absolutely need to be there are:
> 1. support for the explicit/expected failure markup that is currently
> stored at http://boost.org/status/explicit-failures-markup.xml and
> integrated with our results display as described in my
> posting at the beginning of this part of the thread.
OK, as indicated this would need to be added. I will look into this
after I have an initial server running.
> 2. support for determining which tests have regressed since the
> previous release.
This we already have: tests that have been failing for multiple builds
are displayed differently with a link to the build they have been
failing since. We can tweak the reporting of these failures if
necessary, but at least all the info is already known to Pulse.
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