Subject: Re: [boost] Request for a new submodule, tools/depinst
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-11-11 15:00:44
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>
> On 11/11/16 22:45, Rene Rivera wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Andrey Semashev <
>> On 11/11/16 21:26, Rene Rivera wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Peter Dimov <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> wgetting a random version rubs me the wrong way. Test results should be
>>>> Hmm.. Are you saying that getting an old version of the regression tools
>>>> that "matches" a particular checkout of the libraries at some point in
>>>> should always work and be a measure of reproduction?
>>> I think that's correct. In my work, I have a number of scripts to build
>>> various libraries, some of which are downloaded from git or other SCMs.
>>> is essential that whenever those scripts are run, they use exactly the
>>> source to build the package. This is usually achieved by checking out a
>>> particular tag or revision.
>> See my answer to this in the other response.. But essentially.. Think
>> what happens when the test infrastructure changes.
> Not sure what you mean here.
One obvious one.. What would happen when someone checks out and old version
and the testing infrastructure has change enough that the old version
doesn't work any longer? Do we ignore that possibility and fail in some
unpredictable way? Do we implement some version checking and fail nicely
but prevent "users" from running the scripts? Do we want to support
backward version testing of testing infrastructure to ensure the version
checking works for all possible past versions against future versions?
> I think Boost, as a whole, should support this usage. I realize that
>>> checking out a particular revision of each git submodule will always
>>> but since we already use superproject as the synchronization means of
>>> different submodules, checking out a revision of superproject should
>> Haha.. That's really funny. The super project gives as much
>> guarantee as a human passing around pieces of physical paper around the
>> world as he makes changes to them ;-)
> git checkout boost-1.62.0
> git submodule update
> Am I not guaranteed to have Boost 1.62 after these commands? If not,
> something is terribly wrong with the release process.
You are only guaranteed that because *humans* carefully check-pointed that
version and verified it with testing. Can't say the same for any other
random commit outside of the tagged releases though.
-- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - 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