Re: [boost] Re: Regression report for Releases?

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 :-)

Great!
 
> 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:
> 
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.testing/392
> 
> (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...

http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64471.php

Jeff
ps: sorry, it's a long thread with lots of back and forth ;-)