From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-08 07:30:11
Ames, Andreas (Andreas) wrote:
>> I don't think anything as radical as a VM is needed, really. Instead,
>> the harness needs to be (incrementally) refined to
>> 1) control as much of the development environment to which
>> the build process is exposed
>> 2) report all free parameters that influence the outcome.
>> I think this is achievable, using a buildbot setup.
> I wonder why you don't bring your own QMTest to the table. Wouldn't it
> also nicely fit into the boost picture?
Oh, I did. And yes, I think it fits. However, it isn't relevant to this
particular discussion about achieving test coverage and automation.
Both, Rene, as well as Vladimir are aware of QMTest.
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk