From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-26 11:14:31
"Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Please do what's required to bring the overall Boost testing time back
>> down to something reasonable.
> I can do this. Should this be RC_1_33_0 or head?
Both. We're testing them both pending the release of 1.33.1
>>> A main cause of this problem bjam dependency analysis re-runs all
>>> tests on Library X even if library X hasn't changed.
>> No it doesn't.
> Yes it does.
> Here is the scenario. Library X uses something from library Y. Library Y is
> changed. This triggers a rebuild on Library X. This in turn triggers a
> re-build and re-test on Library X. At least that's way it looks like it
> works to me.
That is correct, but what you said made it sound like X would be
The idea that we should not be re-testing libraries when their
dependencies change is debatable, but that's a different discussion.
>> To reiterate:
>> Anything that makes it very difficult and/or expensive for a tester
>> to complete a testing run needs to be fixed rather urgently.
> Well, its been this way for almost a year.
Approximately 11-hour testing cycles for all testers of Boost on one
compiler due to the serialization library has been a fact of life for
a year? That's news to me.
> And it has been inconvenient. But its hard to justify
> characterization as an urgent emergency.
I would have been much more insistent long ago had I known.
-- 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