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:
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 witt_at_[hidden]