From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-09 04:24:10
This is the summary of regression results as I see it:
0. The regression framework seems OK.
It's also more reliable now --
thanks to Aleksey, who made XSLT processing more strict,
and fixed process_jam_log not to loose some output.
1. We have a number of regressions with intel-linux-9.0.
They come from two runners -- Martin and Sandia.
In Martin's result most failures are due to an command line option
that intel-9.0 does not understand, and Martin's results
were not updated since I've checked in the fix.
Sandia's results are post fix, and I see no linker errors.
There are some failures that look genuine.
2. We have a large number of regression with msvc-stlport
configurations. Most are linker errors, which suggests
misconfiguration or Boost.Build bug, or both. I'll work
with Roland on a solution.
3. There are some fails that look genuine.
I think the right way to get 1.34 released now, as far
as regression tests are concerned is this:
1. Completely freeze the list of tested compilers. This
means that anything not tested now is not tested. Notably,
we'll have no coverage for mingw or cygwin versions of gcc.
2. Have me and Roland fix stlport issues.
3. Start pinging developers about remaining failures. I think
we should adopt a policy that will guarantee that all failures
be resolved in a reasonable time -- namely, if a failure is not
fixed by a certain date, it's marked expected and we move on.
That cut-off date might be two weeks from the next Monday
-- Feb 26.
Both (1) and (3) will certainly have an effect on release quality
-- we'll mark some failures as expected instead of fixing them,
and we won't see failures on some configuration. However, I believe
having a release sooner is more important at this point.
Thomas, I would like you to express your opinion on this plan.
Opinions from other Boosters are also appreciated!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk