From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-01 21:01:00
on Sun Apr 01 2007, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld-AT-sympatico.ca> wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> on Sun Apr 01 2007, "MÃ¥rten RÃ¥nge" <marten.range-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> Whether boost is 'monolithic' or a 'library collection' seems to me
> a rather academic question, at least as far as boost users are
> concerned, as they can't download and install individual libraries.
They can only download the whole thing at once, but as for
installation, if they want a subset of headers, what's wrong with bcp?
If they want a subset of binaries, what's wrong with our
> As far as the release process is concerned, it would certainly help if
> the regression testing would be at least somewhat modular.
> Having test runs involve not only all libraries, but also all build variants
> and all (available) toolchains is a very significant slowdown.
Unfortunately, I don't believe all build variants _are_ tested. But
anyway, I don't understand what you mean about modularity and
slowdowns. The tests are distributed across many machines. If you
dedicate a single testing machine to one toolchain and build variant,
you can't do this much faster. Many testers do incremental testing,
so only the changed stuff gets rebuilt.
Anyway, I hope after 1.34 ships we can get to work on a system for
testing much more effectively. The current one is definitely showing
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com Don't Miss BoostCon 2007! ==> http://www.boostcon.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk