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
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 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