From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-15 19:53:48
on Fri Aug 15 2008, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld-AT-sympatico.ca> wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> on Fri Aug 15 2008, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld-AT-sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> Why can't the packaging process be automatized, making it fully
>>> reproducible ? Trying to increase the amount of tests run on the final
>>> package attacs the problem from the wrong end, IMO.
>> reproducability != correctness.
>> I agree that automation is a good idea, but it might also be a good idea
>> to test the results of that automation, neh?
> Indeed. My point, however, was that I would *first* automatize, *then*
> validate. The point of reproducibility is to cut down on the amount of
> (repeated) validation you have to do afterwards, no ? :-)
Makes sense to me.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk