Re: [boost] Re: 1.31.0 regressions

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-12 23:37:58

Douglas Gregor writes:
> On Thursday 12 February 2004 07:38 am, Martin Wille wrote:
>> I often had failures due to problems with my local
>> setup. Emails about failed tests should not be sent
>> without being checked by a human before. (Which main-
>> tainer would want to be notified about my disk-full
>> errors?)
>
> Do these failures typically result in a huge number of problems?
> Perhaps a simple threshold, such as "if there are more than X new
> failures, e-mail the maintainer of the tests; otherwise, email the
> people that checked in code last".

That might be a good heuristic, although, depending on X, it will
either give us some number of false positives (i.e. regression runners
will get notified about "real" failures caused by someone's errorneous
checkin) or false negatives (number of people will get notified about
failures actually caused by a test site problem). False positives
would be probably preferable.

In any case, this definitely can be a workable solution.

-- 
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering