From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-09 11:23:25
Thomas Witt wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> This is the summary of regression results as I see it:
>> 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.
> Agreed. Are you going to update the list of toolsets in
> explicit-failures-markup.xml or should I do it?
>> 2. Have me and Roland fix stlport issues.
> Can you give us a heads-up when the config related issues are sorted out
> so that we have a chance to look at the remaining issues?
Roland is doing another test run now, with stlport build with native
wchar_t. I suppose the results will show up soon.
>> 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.
Ok, so be it. For avoidance of doubt, but cut-off date I meant
that any fails present at this date are marked as expected,
and we completely freeze the code.
In other words, this is date by which failures must be fixed
to enter 1.34.
Do you think a separate announcement to this effect is necessary,
so that everybody notice it?
>> 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.
> All too true. That being said I believe that the quality implications
> are probably negligible.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk