From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-18 02:22:58
on Sun Aug 17 2008, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Beman Dawes wrote:
>>> Probably, but I don't know how to attack some of the tool problems
>>> otherwise. For example, the problem of people changing the tool chain
>>> without realizing it has an impact on the automated release tools, and
>>> the problem of the automated release tools no longer producing some
>>> component (like docs) because of a tool change, and no one noticing.
>> on Sun Aug 17 2008, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
>>> My real point is that there is no reason that any tools that
>>> are used by boost should be treated any differently than
>>> any libraries used by boost.
>> Does that assertion have any practical implications for the issue
>> being discussed?
> LOL - of course it does. If regression testing were setup for
> boost tools, they would be demonstrated to be functioning as
> expected before they were used in the actual release process.
> Had this been procedure been in place, the issue raised
> above would not have occurred.
Thanks for spelling that out; it wasn't obvious 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