Boost logo

Boost Testing :

From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-28 18:39:50


Sean Huang wrote:

> Achieving stability by doing something obviously wrong?


> The name clash is
> because the system had a bug that needs to be fixed. And that's the root
> cause of the problem. I DO NOT think it was fine to get something released
> by hiding a bug.

There was no bug. What we had was a possible ambiguity that was not
causing problems given the set of testers we had when the list was compiled.

> To quote your required platform:
> <snip>
> msvc-7.1
> msvc-8.0
> <snip>
> intel-win-9.1
> intel-linux-9.0
> <snip>

These are toolset names nothing else. Again at the time this list was
compiled they mapped unambiguously to plattforms tested.

> How can you say intel-win-9.1+VC7.1 is the required platform while
> intel-win-9.1+VC8 is not based on this list.

I am not clear on what you are saying here.

> Anybody who has used Intel's compiler knows it is not a "complete" package
> meaning it has to used with another compiler.

As do I.

> As I have said in my previous
> post, not supporting intel-win9.1+VC8 would be a big dissappoint as many
> peopele move to 9.1 because they want to use VC8.

We are way past the point where issues like this make a difference for

>> I am not opposed to the toolset rename but in this case please fix
>> explicit-failures-markup.xml ASAP.
> Glad you finally said this.

For the record I said this in my *first* post regarding this issue.

Just in case you are not aware of this. Currently there is no regression
notification at all for intel-win due to the changed toolset name.


Thomas Witt

Boost-testing list run by mbergal at