Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] boost.test regression or behavior change (was Re: Boost.lockfree)
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-04 09:37:24

On 10/04/2015 08:49 AM, Raffi Enficiaud wrote:
> Le 04/10/15 13:38, John Maddock a écrit :
>> On 04/10/2015 12:09, Bjorn Reese wrote:
>> As many others have said, Boost.Test is "special" in that the majority
>> of Boost's tests depend on it. Even breakages in develop are extremely
>> painful in that they effectively halt progress for any Boost library
>> which uses Test for testing.
> Also special in the sense that boost.test cannot take full benefit from
> the current test dashboard setup: we have to test all libraries before
> being able to push to develop

Ideally yes, but in practicality you should be able to determine whether
or not a change to Boost Test is working properly by only testing a very
few libraries which you know use Boost Test's facilities extensively.
Furthermore this situation will make absolutely no difference whether
you use C++03 or C++11.

>, which means hours and hours of testing
> and infrastructure deployment/maintenance for a single push to a branch
> that is supposed to help us develop boost.test. To be frank, I do not
> think that this requirement on boost.test makes sense.

First you claim a completely unreasonable practical requirement and then
you say it makes no sense.

>> As for testing in C++03 mode - that's easy, just use GCC's default
>> compiler mode ;-)
> I have also a similar setup on OSX, but this does not prevent us from
> making mistakes, and capturing those mistakes before it goes to master
> is the very purpose of the develop branch.

What does what John suggested have to do with the 'develop' branch
versus the 'master' branch ?

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at