From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-12 18:14:29
Vladimir Prus writes:
>>> Depends what you mean by "going". It's not a planned feature
>>> yet. And I think it's better to try to make V2 the official build
>>> system before adding any more features to it. After that, something
>>> should be possible.
>> It can hardly become "the official build system" until we can use it
>> to run regression tests.
> I'm verifying V2 operation on regression tests *now* and I think
> it's pretty close. But you're asking about a new feature which is
> not present in V1, either.
I wasn't specifically asking for it as a prerequisite for "officially"
declaring V2 our production build system. I was just pointing out
that, at the very least, for the latter to happen the regression
testing has to be switched over to V2. At the moment I have no idea
what's involved in it. My major concern is this: does V2 guarantee
exactly the same format of the output ("bjam log") as V1?
> I would say it's more reasonable to switch to V2 first -- from the
> point of regression testing, that would mean adding --v2 to bjam
> invocation, and nothing else.
The V2 toolsets infrastructure is different, and it matters for the
reports. Other than that, if --v2 play well with process_jam_log, I
agree with the rest of your post below.
> One that's done, we can think about further enhancements. Doing the
> switch together with some enhancements will only create problems,
-- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk