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

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-22 13:55:46

David Abrahams writes:
> 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, 

I agree. Note that the config subsystem is in the same position -- if
it's broken, it breaks a lot of stuff all over the place. Not to say 
that it happens often, but still.

> 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?

The other regression runners have to speak for themselves, but we can
definitely setup that here at Meta. As long as it's only the test and 
config libraries which will be tested on the branch, we have enough 
compilation resources to do that while preserving the twice-daily cycle 
for the main trunk (or the release branch). 

IMO we should go for it.

--
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering