Subject: Re: [boost] Bug-fix volunteers: risks, downsides?
From: Jim Bell (Jim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-30 09:44:24
On 1:59 PM, Chris Jefferson wrote:
> On 29 October 2010 15:28, Jim Bell <Jim_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> To round out the discussion...
>> What risks or downsides would there be to recruiting a little legion of
>> bug-fix volunteers and turning them loose on the tickets and/or
>> regression matrix?
> Often fixing bugs on major compilers can break them on less ones, and
> sometimes these aren't noticed (I for example run testers for clang,
> which are sometimes broken). I don't know the best way of doing this,
> but ideally bug fixes by volunteers would want to have a "no compiler
> is more broken than it was before" requirement. This would obviously
> slow down how quickly bug fixes could be applied, because there would
> need to be a cycle of the testers to see which new problems have been
Good point, particularly for fixing regression tests. When attempting a
regression fix, it's initial state across all platforms needs to be
noted and compared to its final state.
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