Boost logo

Boost :

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-03 22:48:48


Robert Ramey

David Abrahams wrote:
> "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
> regressions.
> 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.

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