Re: [boost] Re: [test] revision two

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-13 19:37:27

Rene Rivera <grafik666_at_[hidden]> writes:

> [2003-02-13] Beman Dawes wrote:
>
>>At 11:53 AM 2/13/2003, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>>
>> >> > Hi, everybody
>> >> >
>> >> > Today I committed second revision to Boost.Test library.
>> >>
>> >> Wow, is that a good idea one day before we branch for release?
>> >
>> >I should have done it week ago, but was really sick. Anyway, It does not
>> >contain anything that should break backward compartibility.
>>
>>However, problems with Boost.Test broke a lot of Metrowerks tests.
>>
>>--Beman
>>
>>PS: I started the Win32 tests running this morning, and then left right 
>>away for a meeting.
>>
>>When I got back, random_test had been looping for six hours. Sigh. I don't 
>>know that's related.
>>
>>I'll run the Win32 tests several times a day as long as lots of changes are 
>>being checked in.
>
> I had similar problems with the OpenBSD tests. It ran last night and I woke
> up to it still hung, using 99% CPU, in one test (thread/test_condition).
> Killed it and a few others after that to make it complete.
>
> Since this is release time I'll try and run the tests more frequently, twice
> a day at least, until things get better.

Didn't something just like this happen with Boost.Test just before
1.29.0 was released?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com