From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-24 09:19:59
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Also, please note that I don't mind the _developer summary_ being
>> "aggressive" in its pass/fail reports. There are no "expected
>> failures" there as far as I'm concerned. Every failure needs to be
>> reported in red, with pass->fail transitions emphasized.
> Do you mean that there are no expected failures for the smart_ptr
> library (which we'll take care of soon), or something else? 'Cause I,
> for instance, definitely would like to see a CVS health report in
> terms of regressions rather than absolute failures.
I meant that my objections applied to the user summary, not the developer
summary, and that I personally don't need a way to mask a 'fail' on the
developer summary, even if I expect a test to fail on this configuration.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk