Re: [boost] Re: Boost 1.31 release?

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-12 08:02:58

David Abrahams wrote:
> Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> >> I worry a little about requiring library authors not to regress on
> >> compiler combinations they don't test with.
> >
> > Well, the regressions are run daily, so testing happens. Another
> > question is whether library authors care about how their libraries
perform
> > on all the compilers the regressions are being run on.
> >
> > Obviously, some compilers/configurations are included in the regression
> > testing because the ones who manage the latter are the ones who are
> > most interested in those. Then, again, obviously, some compilers/
> > configurations are included in the regressions because they are very
> > widely used.
> >
> > For every release, the interested parties include library authors,
> > regression runners, the release manager, the maintenance wizard, and of
> > course active users who are subscribed to either of the lists.
> >
> > Given the above "setup", the implied interests of the participating
> > groups, and their explicit and implicit responsibilities and gratitude
> > towards each other, I think striving for "no regressions" goal I stated
> > above would be both a reasonable and fair strategy which can be made to
> > work.
>
> Some people are posting regressions for pre-release compilers.  Should
> a library author should be expected to keep his library healthy on
> some weird/broken compiler just because it happened to work there by
> chance at one point?

You skipped the part of my original posting which explicitly said:

> > While I totally support the failures markup goal, I would like to see
> > _the_ release criteria to include "no regressions from the previous
> > release" item as well, preferrably for all non-beta compilers that are
                                               ^^^^^^^^
> > currently under regression testing. Especially since now we have tools
> > to ensure it.

Aleksey