From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-09 09:49:01
Douglas Gregor wrote:
> Obviously, this is not the case. Looking at the summary page, however,
> we get a view across many CVS states, so it's hard to tell which version
> of the source code we're looking at. The answer isn't to submit only
> once per day (more testing is better, always!), but to have at least one
> build from each tester that references the source code at 12:00am EST.
> When a tester is capable of submitting more builds in a day, we have the
> most up-to-date build AND the 12:00am EST build in the results, which
> will make it very easy to see what's we've broken in a given day.
Would keeping a history of previous builds that are marked with the
state of CVS they tested solve the problem?
If yes.. That's what BuildBot does.
[[ follow ups to boost-testing ]]
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk