[boost] Re: 1.31.0 regressions

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-11 11:16:48

Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:

> At 12:20 PM 2/10/2004, David Abrahams wrote:
>  >
>  >IIUC, we've already found some regressions with 1.31.0, having to do
>  >with the graph library and MSVC6.  These regressions affect the Python
>  >lib also, and the problems show up in the regression test results.
>  >It's very disappointing to me that even though the Python library was
>  >being tested continuously, we let the release go out anyway.
>
> Yes, that worried me too. Wasn't Python a problem with the last major
> release too? 

I don't know.

> Perhaps Python regressions should be looked at more often.

Maybe.  The Python library does depend on more parts of Boost than
many others, so it makes a good "canary".  Mistakes in other libraries
can easily break it.  But with Python tests not included in some of
our "official" tests (ahem), we can easily miss a problem when it
shows up.

>  >We ought to ask ourselves how this happened and see if there's
>  >something we can do to prevent it in the future.
>
> It comes down to release discipline. 

Yes.  When Meta-comm took over the 1.30.2 release they insisted on
zero regressions on selected platforms/compilers.  In the end it was a
good thing.

> If fixes aren't forthcoming for libraries that many other Boost
> libraries depend on, it delays testing on the other libraries. 

Was that really a factor in this last release?  Which libraries were
delayed, and which fixes weren't forthcoming?

> It was also pretty amazing how many commits were made not just after
> branch-for-release, but after release candidate testing started. It
> seems hard to motivate some developers until late in the process.
>
>  > My guess is that inspecting regression results by hand isn't good
>  > enough, and we need an automated system like the BuildBot.
>
> It's not like we didn't know about various regressions. 

There was *no* information about the Python regression posted; at
least, I didn't see any.

> And people doing the regression tests often posted messages
> indicating concern over failures.

I thought they were usually addressed promptly.

> However, if we can turn around critical tests much more often, that
> would certainly help.
>
>  >We also ought to be thinking about releasing 1.31.1 ASAP.
>
> Go for it! 

Gadzooks; there's no possible way I can manage anything until at
_least_ the beginning of March.  Is there anyone else that can handle
this?

> It would be nice to resolve the issue of path lengths over
> 100 characters in tar files, too.

I guess so.  I don't know much about the issue.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com