From: Henrik Sundberg (storangen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-07 04:49:50
2007/10/7, Jeff Garland <jeff_at_[hidden]>:
> Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> > Additionally it's important to split new failures from regression. New
> > failures we just mark as expected on day of release and ignore. At the
> Well, this doesn't quite work for me. If a new library can't pass tests
> on the 'primary platform list' then it needs to be removed from the
> release because it's not ready.
The definition of "New Failure" might be problematic.
E.g. If a test is added in 1.35, due to a bug found (and not fixed) in
1.34, a new failure occurs in the test output.
If functionality with poor quality is added to an old library, then
the code should not be accepted, not just marked as an expected
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk