|
|
Boost Testing : |
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-16 17:10:52
on Sat Oct 06 2007, Nicola Musatti <Nicola.Musatti-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> Rene Rivera wrote:
> [...]
>> Hm, we are going to have to be a bit more formal than that. We need some
>> real criteria for deciding which testers and platforms can go from trunk
>> to release. In the main list you seem to be suggesting that release
>> testers need to have consistent frequent and hence stable test setups.
>
> I would also suggest that exactly one tester is active on the release
> branch for each release platform, with backups ready to takeover in case
> of problems where possible.
Sounds good to me. Someday we may want a way to distribute testing
load for a given platform across testers. We're not ready to do that
yet, though.
> In my opinion when tackling specific regressions the availability of a
> tester to cooperate directly with the developer is even more effective
> than rapid turnaround of complete tests.
I agree. IMO our test system should give Boost developers the
equivalent of direct access to a shell account on the test system.
Frankly, unless testers are manually vetting the contents of each
Boost checkout they do before allowing testing to run, they're giving
every Boost developer that much freedom already. I'm saying the test
system should provide this service because we can't afford to bother
test system administrators with the cost of setting up actual accounts
for Boosters.
> Ideally platform maintainers should be identified who may be
> different from testers and who are available to help developers in
> fixing problems on platforms they don't have access to.
That would sure be nice.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com