Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-03 12:26:28

"Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> Although I don't mind doing c), I would appreciate it if you'd rework
>> the test yourself, before I start.
> Hmm - I was just thinking the the header order in test_export.cpp would be
> inverted.

That's what I thought, too, but I wanted to make absolutely sure I
didn't have a different interpretation than you. This should be
trivial for you to accomplish.

> This would break test_export until the new export.hpp was in.

That's why I wrote:

  You could put the new test on a branch to avoid breaking the

Did you miss that?

In case you need help:

    cvs tag -b serialization_header_order test_export.cpp
    cvs up -r serialization_header_order test_export.cpp
    cvs edit test_export.cpp

    <edit the test>

    cvs commit -m "test for dave" test_export.cpp
    cvs up -A test_export.cpp

Now you're back to the HEAD.

> Again not big deal as far as I'm concerned since I don't think tests
> are even being run on the HEAD right now. If it turns out that more
> needs to be done to make the test past, then that would be sort of a
> red flag indicating that users would have to change all thier
> programs (not just archive_class headers) which shouldn't be
> necessary if I understand your proposal correctly.

Exactly. That's why I want you to make exactly the acceptable change
to the test.

> Note that I'm also asuming that no new information is added to the
> archive itself - which would create quite a splash.
> For this reason, (aside from the fact that serialization has more or
> less exhausted its budget for testing resources). I think this is
> better than making a new test. It will verify the user code won't
> have to be changed.

I never meant to suggest making a new test. I was suggesting that you
change the test yourself.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at