Boost logo

Boost :

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-25 13:42:28

Peter Dimov wrote:
> 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,

OK, I understood that one.

> 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.

Interesting. Given the total number of failures we have, it's
practically impossible to track the regressions if the "expected"
failures are not masked, though - especially when changes are made to
something as basic as 'config' or 'type_traits'. We can easily provide
such report, I am just trying to determine what are the use cases. Could
you please elaborate on yours?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at