From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-07 15:28:37
Thomas Witt wrote:
> Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>>> * The inspection reports 193 non-license problems, and *1059*
>>> license problems.
>> Why can't these be fixed up for 1.34.1?
> Because to many developers don't give a s... I tried to address this
> early on in the 1.34 cycle. To no avail.
Hmm - there's a little more to it. The inspection report flags
all files without a license. In the case of the serialization library
there are data files which contain test data to run some of the test.
These are flagged as "license problem". These files are produced
by the serialization library and I didn't think it appropriate to alter
the library to insert such a message. I've considered the message
advisory. I don't think that is wrong.
>>> * We don't test the build and install process.
I mentioned this before and its a valide point and I don't
think it would be all that hard.
>>> * We don't test libraries against an installed release.
Fixing this is the cornerstone of Beman's proposal.
>>> * We don't test release versions, even though this is the most used
>>> variant by users.
Beman's proposal suggests improvements in the test procedure
which I would hope would address this. That is a test request
would specify which variants are desired.
>> Yep. IMHO, this is contrary to most SWE best practices.
> All to true. It's just that apart from release testing nobody has
> stepped up to do it. Release testing was cut from 1.34 to avoid
> further delays. It's unfortunate, but we can't solve all problems at
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk