Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Build merge?
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-11 14:38:21
Robert Ramey wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> Robert Ramey wrote:
>> Let me try to have all "i" dotted and "t" crossed:
>> 1. Build.Build has extensive testsuite.
>> 2. It would be nice to have it run together with library tests,
>> to improve Boost.Build quality on some platforms where it's not
>> actively tested by users. It will help Boost.Build users, as well
>> folks who are both C++ Boost users and Boost.Build users.
> great, then let's do it.
We've been planning to "do it" for a long time now. But wanting and
doing are usually far part ;-)
>> Adding Boost.Build tests to the mix
>> will only mean the breakage will be detected somewhat earlier and be
>> somewhat easier to figure.
> which would be quite helpful it seems to me.
>> So, adding Boost.Build tests to the test results is not something
>> C++ Boost users or developers should care very much about.
> If we already have an extensive test suite, why not run it?
> What's the downside here?
The downside is that it increases the burden on the test system and
testers. What I've wanted to do for more than a year now is to have a
separate pool of testers, likely with some overlap with current testers,
to do separate tool, documentation, and other testing. Until very
recently I didn't have the resources to try and set up such a separate
testing cycle as I was devoting all of one of my machines to trunk
testing results. And now that Noel has taken over that burden I can set
this up. But of course, doing is still not close to wanting, since this
is not a high-priority it won't get done in the near future.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk