Re: [boost] [Report] 79 regressions on RC_1_34_0 (2007-03-22)

From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-22 12:15:56

Douglas Gregor wrote:

> |python|
>   bases:  gcc-4.1.1_sunos_i86pc
>   builtin_converters:  gcc-3.4.5_linux  gcc-4.0.3_linux  gcc-4.1.0_linux  gcc-4.1.0_linux_x86_64
>   crossmod_exception:  gcc-3.2.3_linux  gcc-3.3.6_linux  gcc-3.4.5_linux  gcc-3.4.5_linux_x86_64  gcc-4.0.3_linux  gcc-4.1.0_linux  gcc-4.1.0_linux_x86_64  intel-linux-9.0
>   crossmod_opaque:  gcc-3.2.3_linux  gcc-3.3.6_linux  gcc-3.4.5_linux  gcc-3.4.5_linux_x86_64  gcc-4.0.3_linux  gcc-4.1.0_linux  gcc-4.1.0_linux_x86_64  intel-linux-9.0
>   exec:  gcc-4.1.1_sunos_i86pc
>   exec-dynamic:  gcc-3.4.5_linux  gcc-4.0.3_linux  gcc-4.1.0_linux  gcc-4.1.0_linux_x86_64  gcc-4.1.1_sunos_i86pc
>   import_:  cw-9.4  gcc-4.1.0_linux_x86_64  gcc-mingw-3.4.2  gcc-mingw-3.4.5  intel-vc71-win-9.1  msvc-6.5  msvc-6.5  msvc-6.5_stlport4  msvc-7.0  msvc-7.1  msvc-7.1  msvc-7.1  msvc-7.1_stlport4  msvc-8.0  msvc-8.0  msvc-8.0
>   iterator:  gcc-3.2.3_linux  gcc-3.3.6_linux  gcc-3.4.5_linux  gcc-3.4.5_linux_x86_64  gcc-4.0.3_linux  gcc-4.1.0_linux  gcc-4.1.0_linux_x86_64  intel-linux-9.0
>   map_indexing_suite:  gcc-3.4.5_linux  gcc-4.0.3_linux  gcc-4.1.0_linux  gcc-4.1.0_linux_x86_64
>   pointee:  gcc-4.1.1_sunos_i86pc
>   pointer_type_id_test:  gcc-4.1.1_sunos_i86pc
>   try:  gcc-3.2.3_linux  gcc-3.3.6_linux  gcc-3.4.5_linux  gcc-3.4.5_linux_x86_64  gcc-4.0.3_linux  gcc-4.1.0_linux  gcc-4.1.0_linux_x86_64  intel-linux-9.0
>   upcast:  gcc-4.1.1_sunos_i86pc

I didn't find any answer when I asked the last time, so I'm asking again:

What is the meaning of the absolute number of 'regressions' ? Did this number really go up
from the last report to the current one ? At least some 'new' ones stem from the inclusion
of the 'gcc-4.1.1_sunos_i86pc' test run in this report, which wasn't present in the last.

What determines the test runs that make it into a report ? Is this sunos platform
really a primary platform for this release ? Why wasn't it tested before ?

How are we ever going to get the number of unexpected failures down to zero ?
I honestly don't believe it will ever happen, if we continue like that. :-(

May I suggest to fix a number of 'primary platforms' (and that may well translate
to specific testers, at this point in the release process), and just disregard anything
else ?

Thanks,
                Stefan

-- 
      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...