Boost Testing :
From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-21 14:15:05
"Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>> I must say I understand you very well. My proposition is to adopt the
>> same procedure for all the libraries.
> If boost buy in to that fine with me. My decision accomplish the
> same benefit with requiring that boost change anything. It also
> will work if boost changes something in its procedure.
You can't get the same benefits without some kind of support from make
system. Let's say you made two patches to your library after last release.
If I want to run regression tests against your first patch I can't do it.
The HEAD contains second patch and last release has unpatched version. I
need to be able to somehow refer to your first patch in my Jamfile, so that
test runners can test against it.
>> And as a result speedup the
>> whole boost release procedures. Many users in big corporations can't
>> rely on "beta" releases. They require an "official" boost release
>> before they can accept any changes.
> If they want to wait for the next "official" release its fine. My
> won't effect the official release date/timetable in any way.
How can you be sure? If you make changes and no one is testing, there is no
information. But If all continue to test against HEAD what is the difference
with what we had before?
>> No. With independent library versioning you may refer and test with
>> older version of the component that did not make the changes. Until
>> you have time/resources to move on to adopt the changes in a
> I see this as being even more complicated than the current situation.
> But anyway its totally beside my point that developers can make
> their lives much easier by testing against the last release rather
> than against the development tree.
They do indeed. But at some point we need to combine it all together to make
another boost release. And if all test against last release instead of HEAD
we may have problems.