Re: [boost] Re: 1.31.0 regressions

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-11 16:50:42

At 03:51 PM 2/11/2004, David Abrahams wrote:
 >> Well, perhaps we should ask whose responsibility it is to watch the
 >> Boost.Python regression logs for VC6.
 >
 >I doubt there's any assigned responsibility.  I was watching, but then
 >I had to travel and lost connectivity.  I did expect that Beman was
 >going to look things over and make sure there were no new regressions
 >before the release went out.  I hypothesize that part of the problem
 >is that he's not looking at the meta-comm tests, which include
 >Boost.Python and Spirit and show regressions against the previous
 >release, rather than just the last test run.  I have been worried for
 >some time that test effectiveness is diluted by having two
 >reporting/display systems... did it bite us here?

No, actually I do look at the meta-comm tests. In fact I review every test 
on every platform. It takes quite a while. I was also concerned about the 
Python tests on Linux, and posted a query on January 27th:

 >> Here are the three tests failing gcc 3.3.1 and 3.3.2:
 >>
 >> * iterator interoperable_fail
 >>
 >> * python embedding

You replied:

 >This one worries me a little.  I'll look into it.

Anyhow, I think your point about multiple reporting is a good one. The 
volume of tests is just too high. Fewer, more comprehensive, tests would be 
easier to monitor. Also fewer compilers. Do we really need to test every 
version of GCC and VC++ for the last four years? If our testing was more 
focused, we could cycle the tests more often too.

--Beman