From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-24 18:09:52
Caleb Epstein <caleb.epstein_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On 5/24/05, Gennadiy Rozental <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> > It would be nice if the Boost.Test library maintainer could avoid
>> > things that cause needless failures to appear in the tests during a
>> > release.
>> 1. They did not appear during release.
> These failures appeared well BEFORE the release, and the results have
> been across-the-board yellow or red for weeks now.
I stand corrected.
>> > I think we've seen multiple times that this at least causes Boost
>> > developers and release managers distress when it happens
>> Does it distress you any less, when faulures in Boost.<anything
>> else> unit tests happends?
> Its rather alarming to see a key component of Boost that fails on
> EVERY single compiler. Clearly the state of the library is not as
> dire as the test results might lead one to believe, but how would
> anyone know this from looking at all those red and yellow boxes?
Right. This is part of what I'm getting at. I would like it if we
could all be more sensitive to the cost to Boost of having any tests
show up in a failing state.
>> > and results in time wasted.
>> What results and in what time?
> The time of people who run and check the test results and try to
> investigate these failures. I know I try to find and fix the odd
> failure from time to time, and I'm sure others do as well.
That's exactly the other part of what I'm getting at. For example,
Doug had to think about this prolem, wonder about its status, and make
a post about it.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk