[boost] Re: Regression report for Releases?

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-21 08:28:12

David Abrahams writes:
> "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:22:53 -0500, David Abrahams wrote
>>
>>> Boost.Build does dependency analysis; there's no reason to re-run
>>> everything from scratch.
>>
>> It seems to be broken at the moment, 
>
> If you mean, "can't trace dependencies generated by macros" like
>
>   #include FOO(bar)
>
> then yes, it's "broken."  If there are other problems, I'm surprised
> to hear it.

>From http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost.Testing:

* Incremental testing is not reliable:

        * Marked as expected-to-fail tests are rerun. There is not point
      to rerun tests if the library is marked as unusable or the test
      is marked as expected to fail on particular toolset. BBv1
      running in testing mode should accept the list of tests which
      are disabled.

        * The obsolete tests (test which do not exists any more) are still
      included in the test results. The tests which have been removed
      still have their test results in the component directories.

        * Jamfiles/rule files are not included as dependencies.

        * bjam doesn't track dependencies if they were included as
      #include MACRO

-- 
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering