Boost Testing :
From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-09 15:14:37
At Saturday 2005-04-09 02:43, you wrote:
>>The fact that the change would likely have gone unnoticed if I hadn't been
>>working on some updates for a client and _known_ that the program had
>>compiled 26.5 hours ago, and failed 16 hours ago and could chase down
>>who'd changed what is rather disturbing.
>>We _must_ make some changes in how the regression tests are run (or
>>perhaps how the results are analyzed) if we ever hope to have reliable
>>stuff going out the door.
>>I believe this throws into serious question whether it is reasonable to
>>expect to do a release of a new version of boost in the immediate future
>>(starting a freeze in 7 days).
>I agree, I've just looked into some apparent regex regressions, for
>example this one: http://tinyurl.com/4g79r was actually fixed in cvs TWO
>MONTHS AGO! Looking at the old style regression logs that Martin is still
>posting here: http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux.html
>shows that test is actually passing on his system, but the MetaCom
>postprocessing is showing hopelessly out of date results.
>Sorry guys, but something is broken somewhere, and has been for a while by
>the looks of it, it's currently pretty pointless trying to fix any
>regressions until we know that any changes will actually be reflected in
>the posted results...
While this is no doubt annoying to developers, I'll point out that
_failing_ to detect an error is "far worse"
>Boost-Testing mailing list
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"