From: Markus SchÃ¶pflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-02 05:08:30
David Abrahams schrieb:
> on Sat Dec 01 2007, Markus SchÃ¶pflin <markus.schoepflin-AT-web.de> wrote:
>> Boris Gubenko schrieb:
>>> HP-UX_ia64_aCC is all green on the trunk except Interprocess library
>>> is marked as not supported.
>> There is an acc test failure in the dynamic bitset library (affecting
>> all 64 bit platforms, AFAICT), which only doesn't show up because it's
>> marked as 'has been failing in the last release'.
>> To make matters worse, this failure wasn't even present in the last
>> release, so the markup is plain wrong. (It's probably from the version
>> before, or something like that.)
>> I think this highlights a problem in the way we're doing the markup for
>> the known failures. If one test fails and is marked up accordingly for
>> the release, there is no procedure that once this failure is fixed, the
>> markup is removed.
> I've been concerned about that for a long time.
> In my view, every bit of markup should have an attribute that says to
> which Boost major release it applies, and when testing for a new
> release, markup for older major releases should be ignored.
> So for example, you might see
> <test name="dyn_bitset_unit_tests1">
> <mark-failure boost_version="1.34">
> <toolset name="msvc-6.5_stlport4"/>
> <note author="Gennaro Prota" refid="37" />
> By "major" I mean the difference between 1.34.x and 1.35.x, so
> developers would not have to update markup just for bugfix releases.
Just removing the expected failures markup after every major release
would have the same effect, wouldn't it?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk