Re: [boost] [Range] Proposal: a sub-maintainer of Boost.Range

Subject: Re: [boost] [Range] Proposal: a sub-maintainer of Boost.Range
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-12-19 06:13:00

Le 19/12/12 11:38, Vicente J. Botet Escriba a écrit :
> Le 19/12/12 10:17, Nathan Ridge a écrit :
>>> However, if I were you, I would wait until some of the test bots 
>>> cycled, to make sure that nothing is broken - then merge to release.
>> I assume I'm supposed to be looking here [1] and here [2]. I have a
>> few questions about what I'm seeing:
>>
>> 1. At [1], I see a number of yellow "fail" boxes. The legend describes
>>     this as "failure on a newly added test/compiler". Should I be 
>> worried
>>     about these?
> Yes. It is up to the maintainer to update the 
> status/expected_results.xml file to indicate that this is a test 
> running correctly, so that a regression is seen red instead of yellow. 
> Unfortunately I don't think a lot of maintainers know that an even 
> those that know (as me) don't maintain this file.
>
>>
>> 2. At [2], I see that Boost.Range has "issues": the 'type_erased' test
>>     is failing (in yellow colour) on a number of testers. Looking back
>>     at [1], I see those yellow boxes under 'type_erased' and the
>>     corresponding testers, but I also see yellow boxes under other 
>> tests,
>>     which do not show up as issues in [2]. What makes 'type_erased'
>>     special that its failure causes an "issue", but not the failure of
>>     other tests?
> I think this is a summary for some compilers, but I don't know which 
> ones and why not all the testers are considered.
>> 3. Is there a way to look at older test results, so that I can compare
>>     test results from before my commit to test results from after my
>>     commit, so that I can see whether my commit specifically broke
>>     anything?
> No that I know. You can try to see if testers that did a run before 
> your commit are working or not.
>
>
BTW, note that there are some testers that are reporting errors for 
warnings and that some testers as BP x86_64 C++11 
<http://www.boost.org/development/tests/trunk/BP%20x86_64%20C++11.html> 
for clang- linux- 3.2_c++11_libc++ are not working at all.

Vicente