Re: [Boost-docs] Making Boost Doc builds more robust

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] Making Boost Doc builds more robust
From: Daniel James (daniel_james_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-03 19:21:05

2008/12/3 John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]>:
>
> OK, I've committed the changes to the quickbook testing Jamfiles - including
> two new "expected fail" tests which currently fail since quickbook doesn't
> return an error.  There are probably other things that should be included in
> the list of hard errors as well: I remember being caught out by invalid
> templates in the past (typo in the template name, or wrong number or args).

One more thing - quickbook-fail-test doesn't run again if the test is changed.