From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-20 19:01:38
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:22:53 -0500, David Abrahams wrote
> > Plus if it takes 5 hours to run a Boost build you will still have a
> > long delay before you find out if something is broken.
> We simply have to get incremental testing working.
Yes, this helps tremendously, but as soon as there is a check-in in boost.test
or boost.config you're still back to basically a full rebuild. So if you have
one machine there will be some backup behind these full builds. Also, you
probably want to periodically rebuild all just b/c I have yet to meet a
perfect dependency checker...
> > For most developers they would like to see a library focused
> > rebuild, which for most could happen in minutes. As an example,
> > since almost nothing in Boost depends on date-time it's very hard
> > for me to break all of Boost. So rerunning all of the Boost
> > regression for a date-time check-in is mostly a waste of resources.
> Boost.Build does dependency analysis; there's no reason to re-run
> everything from scratch.
It seems to be broken at the moment, but I agree that most of the time this
will do the job. Still, if there was library level selection that would still
be better for those changes where the developer knew of a library he wanted to
Not complaining on either of these, just aiming for the ideal world ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk