From: Rozental, Gennadiy (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-21 15:12:21
> According to http://tinyurl.com/3f32c tests have been failing
> (IIUC for several days if not longer) because of
> protected/private access violations in the test library. See
> the end of http://tinyurl.com/35ole for details. IMO this
> situation is unacceptable, and I'm looking for practical
> solutions. Problems with the Boost.Test affect our ability
> to get meaningful feedback on the state of other libraries.
> If Gennadiy can't test on more compilers before checking in,
> and respond faster to problems introduced in its source, and
> if library authors genuinely find Boost.Test useful, maybe we
> need to move to a different model wherein the test library's
> own tests are run on a CVS branch of the code (?) so that
> Gennadiy can see and deal with his problems before they are
> merged into the main trunk and break everything else?
I do test on as much compilers I have accessible. In this particular case
It was working on all compilers but Borland. I posted request for workaround
while ago. Still no response. I had to test other configuration and I
committed it. Actually I was surprised that so many compilers had an issue
with completely innocent using declaration. Anyway I think it should be
fixed as of last night. I found some hack that should work on complaining
compilers. I will see the results of regression test today.
As for creating separate brunch for Boost.Test development, I do not
really mind. But I believe it will create an extra headache for regression
testers (and me). Essentially we will need to have two copies of development
tree. And run Boost.Test unit test in a separate tree. I will need to keep
moving files back and forth 2 branches. Also I wonder how it will interact
with release procedure.
You may noticed that I am trying to introduce modification in Boost.Test
in "packages", meaning I do not d code modifications all the time. I am not
sure that several days of "no regression test on some compilers", worth all
that trouble. Especially since all the developers could always rollback
Boost.Test modification locally for development testing.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk