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
> >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
> 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
> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk