From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-12 19:08:43
Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> >> Misha and Aleksey -- I think we really need to distinguish those
>> >> failures from real regressions in the chart somehow or we'll never be
>> >> able to tell where we stand.
>> > Well, it was assumed that when adding a new compiler one should use
>> > the regressions against the previous release and report the current
>> > using _those_ expected results.
>> Many tests might have worked on the new compiler "by chance" with the
>> previous release. It isn't fair to demand that maintainers to fix
>> bugs on compilers they haven't agreed to support.
> I am not sure how your remark is related to this particular
> sub-thread, but I agree, actually.
It's related because I was suggesting that previously unsupported
compilers should be demarcated so it's clear which ones those are.
> On the other hand, some of the compilers which the library author(s) might
> be indifferent to are of some interest to the regression test maintaniners
> and some number of users. It would be unfair to _not_ to give them a chance
> to keep those supported by a small amount of cooperation on
> everyone's side.
What kind of special cooperation is needed at the point the release
manager is involved? If these regression maintainers and users care,
won't they be posting and/or applying patches to keep the platform
healthy? If that isn't happening or the patches aren't being applied,
for whatever reason, I'm reluctant to add it to the release manager's
list of responsibilities.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk