Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-04 20:32:27

"Rene Rivera" <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>> "Rene Rivera" <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>>>>> The proposal seems to assume infinite resources in testing.
>>>> Which particular part?
>>> On-demand testing, testing of breaking-stable branch, continuous testing
>>> of stable branch, all with high-availability and high-. Currently we can
>>> only manage partial testing of *1* branch, in one build variation. And
>>> now we are talking of testing at least three branches at once.
>> My solution doesn't require ANY of that. Let me repeat NONE.
> Gennadiy, with all due respect, I wasn't talking about your solution. I
> was talking about Beman's proposal. I think it is a wasted effort to
> consider proposals and solutions that I can read concise documentation
> for. It's almost impossible to comment on them otherwise. So for all
> those thinking that their way is better, please write it up and we can
> consider them individually.

Most of is here:

and some follow-up posts


But you are write. I should put it somewhere publically available.

>> Let's me clarify again: do you believe 1.34.0 can't be used as stable
>> starting point? If not, why?
> Yes, it can't be used for a stable starting point. Because it is not
> proven stable, with testing, under the conditions users would operate
> under.

I got what you are trying to say. What I am trying to say is though it's
good and in general right direction, I don't see it happening without
support of several yet unknown new tools. I believe we should phase it. and
this particular requirements can be phased for later stages.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at