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
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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk