Re: [boost] trunk vs release

Subject: Re: [boost] trunk vs release
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-21 12:45:19

This discussion demonstrates what's wrong with the current testing of the 
trunk.

Here is the way it should be done.

For each library that is changed, the library version on the trunk should be 
tested against
the release branch.  In practice this would work something like the 
following:

On the tester's machine start out with a current image of the release 
branch.
    For each library A
        switch library A's directories to the trunk
        run tests
        Restore image to release

This would

a) attribute failures to their proper source
b) prevent testing of each library (A) with provisional (trunk) code
c) guarentee that when changes are merged into the release no new failures 
occur.
d) reduce testing time since a small expermental change in one library in 
the trunk
wouldn't provoke rebuild and test of all its dependents.

On my own machine, I have a release branch and I've switched the 
serialization
library directories to the trunk.  I can verify that all the above mentioned
benefits are in fact realized.  Boost testing would benefit greatly from
adopting the same strategy.

Robert Ramey

troy d. straszheim wrote:
> Daniel James wrote:
>> 2009/5/21 troy d. straszheim <troy_at_[hidden]>:
>>> Okay, but with the current trunk, you're regression testing a lot
>>> of cruft that has been sitting there ignored for years.
>>
>> Whatever branching scheme you use, unmaintained code will still be
>> unmaintained.
>>
>
> That's true of course.  And of course this has little to do with the
> practice of repeatedly testing and 'merging around' unmaintained,
> unreleased code.
>
>>> How about regression-testing a codebase that has a fighting chance
>>> of actually becoming a release?
>>
>> Boost is a volunteer organisation.
>
> You're stating the obvious; sorry if I'm irritating you.  (BTW I
> didn't mean "you" above when I said "you're regression testing").  I'm 
> just being careful, trying to establish how much of this is by design,
> and how much has just 'evolved' on its own...
>
>> In order for something to happen that effects everyone, someone has
>> to make a proposal, convince people (I'm not sure exactly who) to go
>> along with it, deal with whatever issues there are and put it into
>> action. And in this case, nobody has.
>
> ... and now I have my answer.  Thanks.
>
> -t
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost