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

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-13 23:13:28

Jeff Garland writes:
> 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 don't see why. These people are not Boost developers.

>> > 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'.

We could do that, but see below.

>
>> > 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...

I tend to share the sentiment, but I'd still prefer the main
page/release notes to have direct links to both sets of pages --
correspondingly marked up, of course.

-- 
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering