Re: [boost] regressions: release or not release?

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-20 01:02:54

Arkadiy Vertleyb writes:
> There seem to exist certain inconsistency between which compilers
> are marked as "required" in explicit-failures-markup.xml, and how
> often the regressions are run on these compilers. 

Some, yes, in particular because the list hasn't been updated yet for
the upcoming release.

> For example, for a long time there has been no results for msvc or
> vc-7_0.

They are back online now and will stay that way.

> The cw-8_3 appeared in the regression tables some time ago (adding
> 20 or so failures to the typeof test results), had the regressions
> run a couple of times, and vanished (probably somebody removed the
> old results).

We were actually thinking about permanently dropping out cw-8_3 from
our tests, but I guess following the principle of not dropping support
without giving one release worth of warning means that we should stick
with it for one more round.

Hmm, David, is there a chance you could pick this one up from us?
Alternatively, we can pick it up ourselves if somebody takes MSVC
6.5/7.0 from us (we would like to keep our regression cycle under 12
hours to provide a more or less adequate "feedback time").

-- 
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering