From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-29 07:04:02
Vladimir Prus writes:
> On Monday 29 January 2007 12:55, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> > Vladimir Prus writes:
> > > I've checked in the attached (HEAD and RC). The failure in question
> > > was reported a couple of times, and nothing happens, which means we
> > > get to release 1.34.0 with it.
> > FYI, there is a special markup notation for unresearched failures:
> > <mark-expected-failures reason="?">
> > ^^^^^^^^^^
> That's literal "?", right?
> > ...
> > </mark-expected-failures>
> > It both makes it easier for a library/platform user to spot them in
> > the reports, and easier for developers to return and research them
> > later.
> Thanks, I'll use this. Is this syntax documented anywhere?
Not explicitly, no. You can use the existing markup in
"status/explicit-failures-markup.xml" as a sampler, though.
-- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk