|
|
Boost Testing : |
From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-06 10:24:43
Stephen W. Carson wrote:
> 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]
>
> First time I've seen that. I think my toolsets are named fine because
> I did what I was told to do.
Don't remember when the discussion about toolset names happened. But it
was likely when the first XSLT results came online.
> Which toolsets are marked as required for release? How do I know?
Currently the list is:
borland-5_6_4
cw-9_4
cw-8_3
cw-9_3-darwin
cw-9_4-darwin
cw-9_5-darwin
msvc
msvc-stlport
vc7
vc-7_1
vc-8_0
mingw-3_4_2
mingw-3_3_1
gcc-2.95.3-linux
gcc-2.95.3-stlport-4.5.3-linux
gcc-3.3.5-linux
gcc-3.4.3-linux
gcc-4.0.0-linux
gcc-3_3-darwin
iw-7_1-vc6
iw-7_1-vc6-stlp-4_5_3
intel-win32-8_0
intel-8.1-linux
The list is at the top of boost-root/status/explicit-failures-markup.xml
Hmm... I guess we should remove cw-9_[34]-darwin :-)
And remove iw-*.
Any chance the metacomm tests could be switched from "vc7" to "vc-7_0"?
> You wrote (in a different message) that all a toolset requires is a
> commitment from one person to support the platform. Does that mean
> running the regressions faithfully as I've been doing for gcc and cw on
> the Mac? Or more than that?
More than that. Obviously a release toolset needs to be consistently
tested. But it also requires someone who is willing to debug the tests.
Testing is awesome, but if there's no one to fix the problems the
toolset will always show up with errors. Ultimately though it's up to
the release manager.
-- -- 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