Re: [Boost-testing] [PING] toolset name changing and regressions

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-28 03:01:31

David Abrahams writes:
> David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> With all the updating of toolset names we've done recently, have we
>> got a system in place for ensuring that failures are detected properly
>> as regressions and not mistaken for failures on newly-added compilers?

Uhm, kind of. The only required toolsets that have been renamed are
"msvc", "msvc-stlport", and "vc7", and these have been covered (by
duplicating the corresponding 1.32.0 results under the new names). A
much more interesting question is what should be our policy regrading
compiler upgrades, minor or otherwise. For instance, should [brand
new] CW 9.4 results be reported against CW 8.3 ones from the previous
release, at least with regard to regressions? How about CW 9.5 vs. CW
9.3? 

I'm inclined to say "yes" at least for the latter, but opitions are
most welcome.

-- 
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering