Boost logo

Boost Testing :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-16 11:21:06

Roland Schwarz <roland.schwarz_at_[hidden]> writes:

> I know this might not be the ideal time to bring this up, but since the
> last message I found about this topic dates back to 2005,
> I'd like to ask, if this still is under consideration (perhaps for 1.35?).

We're always considering our options.

> As I have already expressed in another post I have the feeling the
> regressions currently don't give a perfect picture about sanity of the
> boost lib. I might be wrong however.
> I doubt that the really is very failsafe, and does not
> need much operator intervention.

Aside from the timeout issue noted below, *if* you use all the default
options, it seems to be pretty idiot-proof. However, when I started
doing things differently (like supplying a cvs username or requesting
--incremental builds) I saw that the script wasn't quite baked.

> I never found out how the annoying
> message boxes, that hold the test are supposed to be handled. Can
> anyone explain please?

Apparently you add -l120 (or whatever number of seconds you're willing
to wait for a build action to run) to the bjam command line.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost-testing list run by mbergal at