Re: [boost] Re: [Boost.Test] New testing procedure?

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-22 08:55:11

On Fri, 21 May 2004 20:41:59 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
> "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> > Dave Abrahams wrote:
> > I believe we will have to move to an "on demand" model for most testing
> > while reserving "total coverage" testing for just prior to release.  
> 
> I don't.  You can get test results for any library on any compiler
> that's being tested daily within 24 hours.  Some compilers are tested
> every 12 hours (see meta-comm).  I don't see why that should be 
> insufficient.  

It's kind of spotty outside of the meta-comm guys:
IBM Aix 11 days
Mac OS  today
SGI Irix 2 weeks
linux 4 days
Sun Solaris 6 days
Win32 4 weeks
win32_metacomm today

And that's today.  Consider during the next couple months 3-4 new libraries
are pending to be added.  Serialization tests alone dramatically increase the
length of the time to run the regression if we always run the full test. What
will happen in a year when we have say 10 new libraries?
 
Robert and I have believe something will need to be done.  We've tried to
start a discussion, but no one responded:

http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64471.php
http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64491.php

Jeff

BTW I might be able to contribute to the Linux testing -- are there
instructions on how to set this up somewhere?