Re: [boost] Re: 1.31.0 regressions

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-16 12:49:38

At 09:26 AM 2/16/2004, David Abrahams wrote:
 >Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
 >
 >> At 11:18 PM 2/12/2004, David Abrahams wrote:
 >>  >Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
 >>  >
 >>  >>  >3. Compile time may become very large for large test
 >>  >>  >    programs or heavy template usage. E.g. in one case,
 >>  >>  >    we had to split a test into three (Spirit's switch_p
 >>  >>  >    tests) in order to make testing feasible.
 >>  >>
 >>  >> It is hard to know the overall effect without accurate timings. My
 >>  >> personal belief is that on average the total time will drop. But we
 >>  >> need timings to know for sure.
 >>  >
 >>  >I still can't understand why we're focused on reducing testing time.
 >>
 >> The longer the tests take, the fewer times they can be cycled.
 >>
 >> That is a particular problem as a release nears. The release manager
 >> often has to delay some action pending the outcome of tests. Not a
 >> problem if the tests run quickly and cycle often. But when a test
 >> cycle takes 2 1/2 to 3 hours, as was common during the runup for
 >> 1.31.0, it adds days to the time it takes to finish a release.
 >
 >But if we were only running the outdated tests, this would be much
 >less of an issue, right?

Yes. Also note that we've talked about other changes which also will serve 
to minimize compile and/or test times. Dropping outdated compilers. 
Reworking tests which take excessive times. Etc. The combined effect could 
be markedly reduced regression testing load.

--Beman