Re: [boost] [SVN]Best Practices for developers using SVN

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-02 16:12:29

Doug Gregor wrote:

> Frankly, I think this whole approach of "fixing the process" is
> wrongheaded. We're in this mess because our *tools* are broken, not
> our *process*.

That's the issue. its the process that's broken.  No amount
of improvement in the tools will fix it.

> What doesn't work? Regression testing.

This is true.  And it can never be made to work and be useful
under the current procedures.

> - Doug
>
> P.S. Here are some of the many things I could have done that would
> have been more productive than writing the message above:
> 1) Made regression.py work with Subversion, so that we would be
> performing regression testing on the trunk.

wouldn't be necessary under the new proposal.

> 2) Looked at the changes made on the RC_1_34_0 branch to determine
> which ones can be merged back to the trunk.

wouldn't be necessary under the new proposal.

> 3) Fixed some of the current failures on the trunk.

wouldn't be necessary under the new proposal.

> 4) Setup a new nightly regression tester.

wouldn't be necessary under the new proposal.

> 5) Studied Dart2 to see how we can make it work for Boost

Hmm I don't know what this is. But another tool won't make a
difference.

> 6) Investigated the problems with incremental testing.

of course any improvement is necessary.  But current tools work
well enough.  They are not the bottleneck.

> 7) Improved the existing test reporting system to track Subversion
> revisions associated with test runs, and link to those
> revisions in the Trac.

wouldn't be necessary under the new proposal.

> 8) Improved the existing test reporting system to track changes from
> day to day

wouldn't be necessary under the new proposal.

> Before I reply to any messages in this thread, I'll be thinking about
> that list. Will you?
> P.P.S. I know I sound grumpy, because I am. The amount of time we
> have collectively used discussing policies would have used far more
> wisely to improve the tools we have.

You guys have been making a heroic effort and in no way to I want
to denigrate your efforts.  But I think you're shoveling against the tide.
We have more problems now than before not because someone
isn't working hard enough or putting enough time.  The current
process is fundamentally flawed in that it doesn't scale.  Working
harder with better tools isn't going to produce the improvements
that re-thinking the process will.

Of course the beauty of this is we really don't all have to agree.  You're
free to improve the tools for trunk testing and the like and those of us who
want to are free to use branches for development.  If we can't agree
to move to smaller incremental releases - well, we can do what Joaquin
has done - post incremental improvements on a library by library
basis.

We'll see how it works out.

Robert Ramey