Re: [boost] 1.33 release regression results -- 'extra compilers'

From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-12 23:21:06

At 21:28 2005-08-12, you wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:07:38 -0500, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote
> > Jeff Garland writes:
> > > Why are digital mars, como and other 'non-required' compilers in the
> > > regressions results page ( http://tinyurl.com/cdlxk )?
> >
> > Because the release was tested on them and many people would like to
> > see what's the status of these?
>
>Shouldn't these be on the 'developer link' ?
>
> > > I was expecting to see an all green condition
> >
> > If you follow the "Release View" link at the top, you'll see the
> > report showing only the status of the required toolsets.
>
>I see -- I believe this is where the mainpage link should send 'users'.
>
> > > and instead I see a bunch of failures we never really tried to
> > > resolve.  I think we should remove these from the user pages....
> >
> > On what basis?
>
>It's just extra noise for most users -- not many people use dmc or tru64.  And
>it could reduce their confidence in boost...

if we took out all the "expected failures" it would reduce their 
confidence in most compilers

>Jeff
>_______________________________________________
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Victor A. Wagner Jr.      http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"