From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-26 12:58:27
David Abrahams wrote:
> "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
If I recall correctly, the idea was that there would be a release of 1.33.1
30 September 2005. I will be leaving town this sunday 2 October. Do we
really want to mess with something that's been this way for a year and will
only go on for couple more days at this time? That doesn't seem wise to me.
>>>> 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
> retested unconditionally.
> The idea that we should not be re-testing libraries when their
> dependencies change is debatable, but that's a different discussion.
Well, if we weren't doing that we wouldn't have a problem. So if its not
the same discussion but it is related. Of course we can test less. But the
root of the problem is that probably only a small percentage of the effort
invested in testing is actually testing anything. I know I've brought this
up before but made no headway so I won't harp on it anymore.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk