Re: [boost] [1.51][Release] Short release cycle

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.51][Release] Short release cycle
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-29 14:14:04

On 29 June 2012 12:07, Oliver Kowalke <oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Not yet, there's a few things we need to sort out. The most important
>> is that the regression test results are good. Can you mark up expected
>> failures in 'status/explicit-failures-markup.xml' (remember to check
>> the xml before committing, there's instructions at the top of the
>> file)? Do you have any idea why Visual C++ 10 is failing?
>
> You are refering to tests RW_VC10 and RW_Mingw45? This is because the owner of this computers does not have the MASM (assembler) in its search dir.

Thanks for the explanation. That probably shouldn't go in to
explicit-failures-markup.xml as it's machine specific (i.e. can work
on other testers with the same compiler). An unfortunate limitation of
our current test system.

> Some regression tests will fail because the platform (for instance architecture SPARC) is not supported (but might be added later).

That's the kind of thing that should be put in
explicit-failures-markup.xml. You want something like:

    <!-- context -->
    <library name="context">
      <mark-unusable>
        <toolset name="cray*"/>
        <toolset name="intel-linux*"/>
        <note author="Oliver Kowalke">
          This platform is not supported (but might be added later).
        </note>
      </mark-unusable>
    </library>

The asterisk in 'cray*' can only come at the end.

>> We also need to add the documentation to the build, I can take care of
>> that, do you want the documentation to be standalone (i.e. in
>> 'libs/context/doc/html') or part of the combined documentation (in
>> 'doc/html')?
>
> standalone

OK, I'll sort that out over the weekend and run a build.

>> Finally, please add your details to 'libs/maintainers.txt' and your
>> library to 'libs/libraries.htm' - putting it in appropriate sections
>> as well the alphabetical list.
>
> OK - if I've done it I've 'go ahead'?

Before merging, wait until I've sorted out the documentation (also,
the release branch isn't open yet). I'll have a more detailed look
over the weekend, but the library does seem to be in good shape.