Re: [Boost-cmake] Attn: Bitten hackers. Discussion about transforming CTest output format

From: troy d. straszheim (troy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-22 14:41:24

Doug Gregor wrote:
> 
> I don't think we should look at different test-running mechanisms than
> CTest. CTest integrates very nicely with CMake, and we don't have to
> maintain it.
> 
>> For what I have been doing, dummy builds suffice.   I'm willing to switch to this though....
>> We could decide for now to bear with the extra administrative overhead of the current bitten
>> and focus on this stuff instead.  Comments?
> 
> I think it is much more important to continue working on decoupling
> the masters and slaves a bit, because that's the fundamental part of
>               Bitten that could give us trouble.
> 
> Have these issues been discussed with the Bitten developers at all?

I've caught Christopher Lenz on IRC.  We'll see.  I'll report back.

> Are they willing to accept patches that reduce the current level of
> coupling, and/or do some of this work? We can't do anything that would
> result in forking Bitten or taking over maintainership of major
> changes.

Understood, agreed.  If it indeed turns out that bitten isn't easily refactored/patched,
how about putting something together that integrates *directly* with CTest.
Maybe the kitware guys would have some interest.  I have to guess that I'm not the only one who
doesn't care for the java-Dart monolith.

-t