[boost] Re: 1.32 release preparation

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-28 17:13:15

"Aaron W. LaFramboise" <aaronrabiddog51_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Almost everything is the regression tests.  The idea is, that if your
> changes pass the regression test, everything that worked before should
> still work.  What might have problems would be new features that don't
> have tests, or odd bugs that noone has written tests for, etc.
>
> There is a certain amount of civic responsibility here.  The idea is
> that a submitter is responsible for his patch.  If a patch breaks
> something, even if its only by exposing a latent bug, the submitter has
> an obligation to help the maintainer of the broken area to fix it.  It's
> my opinion that this works well in practice.

This isn't a new idea for Boost: that's the way we've always
operated.  The difference is probably that GCC has a nice automatic
regression test system.  Several people have been working on setting
that up for Boost, but it's not done yet.

> I personally beleive its very important that the main tree should always
> be working, even if it is "unstable" simply due to its sheer volatility.
>  If patches are allowed to be checked in that cause regressions, and the
> submitter is not obligated to fix the problems created by the
> introduction of the patch, there is no particular garentee that it will
> be fixed at all in a timely manner.  If parts of the project are broken
> for extended periods of time, development work might be dramatically
> slowed or halted altogether.

It's never been OK to leave things in a broken state.  IMO the one
possible exception is a new library that nothing depends on and is not
yet officially released.  It might be OK to allow that library to be
"broken" while the maintainer works on porting issues.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com