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
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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk