From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-16 16:24:43
Beman Dawes wrote:
> Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>> "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>>> Can you give me an example. It looks like unrelated issue.
>>> Gennadiy, I've asked Eric Niebler to revert your recent changes. We
>>> can't tolerate this sort of wholesale breakage of the trunk.
>> It took me all but 5 min after report to fix it and commit. Latest vertion
>> of the trunk should've work (everything by John issue, which I can't
> The smoke tests run at revision 40093 still were showing a lot of
> failures. The new tests are running now.
>> How can you expect me to make any changes? I am trying to be as
>> responsive as possible.
> The expectation is that changes to a foundation library like test that
> is part of our testing infrastructure will be very well tested before
> they are committed to the trunk.
> We need to do a postmortem to figure out why your testing didn't
> determine that there was a problem before you did a commit.
> What tests did you run?
> On what platform?
> Did you add a new test to detect whatever failed?
> What other steps can we take in the future to prevent this wholesale
> breakage from happening again?
>> This is at best discouraging. I might have couple days now and than I might
>> be busy for another half a year. These changes seat on my hard drive for a
>> year now - I did not have time to invest to be able to track all the issues.
> Yes, I found it very discouraging too.
The Win32 smoke test at 40095 is now available. See
And reverting the Boost.Test changes resulted in a dramatic improvement.
Dozens of tests that started to fail last night are now working again.
It looks to me like Gennadiy should run the full test suite locally
before committing changes to trunk. That would have certainly detected
last night's snafu before it happened.
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