From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-21 22:25:47
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:47:56 -0600, Rene Rivera wrote
> My goal is to have it doing Linux regressions (gcc-release) by next
> week. I taking it carefully, and hence slowly, as it's crucial to
> reduce the chances of any test system from breaking. So I do some
> changes and let the thing run for a day to see if anything strange happens.
> After it's running on my limited setup we can talk about expanding
> to other brave testers out there :-)
> Proxies can solve most firewall problems, so I wouldn't worry too
> much about that.
Ok, I'll accept that it might work if the slave goes outbound to the master to
connect. I don't really understand the architecture, but don't worry about
explaining it...I'll read the docs when I get a free moment.
> Definitely. I made the suggestion earlier that we should break up
> the testing so that some testers can devote resources to only
> testing subsets of Boost:
> (I know it's a long post.. The scalability section is what I'm
> referring to.)
No problem on the length -- somehow I missed this mail completely. Obviously
you and I agree on the need to split things up. I (with others) have
suggested before that a big help would be splitting out the 'dll' versus
'static'. I've also suggested we consider standardizing different levels
'basic' vs 'exhaustive', etc.
I won't rediscuss it all, but I think there are other things we can do to
improve the testing scalability...
ps: sorry, it's a long thread with lots of back and forth ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk