From: Richard Smith (richard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-04 11:47:31
Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Previously, we decided on this list that on a certain date, all remaining
> failures will be marked as expected.
Freeze was scheduled to be at 11:00 UTC on Mar 2nd; the
regression was only introduced at 23:08 UTC on Mar 1st. And
the file in question (<boost/none.hpp>) has been modified
twice since then to fix other regressions introduced
by that commit.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not against that commit having
gone in at the last minute -- other parts of the commit
fixed several important issues, but it seems unreasonable to
expect any problems with it to have been fixed in the twelve
hours between commit and freeze. And indeed the file in
question has been edited in the last week to fix other
> Now, you're pointing out that
> we have a regression, for which we don't even have a test.
Yes you do. The patch I attached to my email this morning
added a test to the test suite.
> In light of that decision, we probably can add a test for that problem,
> and immediately mark all failures of said test as expected. But that
> would not be very helpful. I don't think we should give this problem
> any bonus points just because it's not discovered by the tests yet.
Indeed, and I'm not suggesting it should. But if the test
suites were indiciating a failure that would silently change
legitimate user code across all platforms, I would hope that
too would be fixed rather than marked 'expected'.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk