Re: [Boost-testing] Toolset naming and regressions

From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-04 12:42:55

At 10:25 2005-06-04, you wrote:

>Jeff Garland wrote:
>>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 11:33:56 -0500, Rene Rivera wrote
>>
>>>Jeff Garland wrote:
>>>
>>>>So...we really need to standardize toolset naming for regression testers.
>>>
>>>It is standardized as: [toolset]-[version]-[platform]-[cpu]-[build]
>>
>>I don't see that standard being followed b/c not a single toolset I see has
>>all these elements on the regression pages.  Plus there are are variations
>>like 'msvc-stlport' -- which I'm not sure how the form above accounts for 
>>this
>>variant.  Also 'vc7' is lacking a dash and has a different name from 
>>msvc, etc.
>
>Yea I know... People tend not to listen and do their own thing :-( Some of 
>the exceptions are historical msvc vs. vc-6, vc7 vs. vc-7. The test I run 
>have all those those elements of course :-) 
>(gcc-4_0_0-linux-i686-release). But what I didn't say originally is that 
>unless it makes a difference the various parts can be ommited. For example 
>there's no point in having the platform and cpu for VC.

what about the 64bit flavors of VC... they exist now, the only reason I'm 
not running them is because I'm rounding up drivers for my motherboard

>  And the build should only be there if it's different the default "debug".
>
>>>As far as the release and Beman's gcc tests. Don't worry about it, i.e. 
>>>don't do anything about it. Only toolsets marked as required for release 
>>>are important right now. And *only* toolsets that are properly versioned 
>>>are marked for release.
>>I realize I don't have to look at them for release, but this is an ongoing
>>problem with regression testers coming and going.
>
>But it's a soon to dissapear problem. After this release we'll be 
>switching to BBv2 which doesn't have the same toolset naming problems.

is anyone testing some regression scripts for v2?

>>Also, I'm very interested in making sure gcc
>>on Solaris continues to work so I need to look at the bigger list (btw, is
>>there some reason this isn't one of the release compiler set?).
>
>Don't know.. It usually only takes one person willing to guarantee they 
>are going to put effort into supporting the toolset platform combination, 
>as I do for CW on Windows (and a bit less so on MacOSX). If you have that 
>platform around, as in a machine you use, you can ask the release manager 
>to consider making it a release platform.
>
>
>
>--
>-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
>-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
>-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
>-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org
>_______________________________________________
>Boost-Testing mailing list
>Boost-Testing_at_[hidden]
>http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-testing
>

Victor A. Wagner Jr.      http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"