Boost Testing :
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-08 19:25:13
on Sat Dec 08 2007, "John Pavel" <jrp-AT-dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>> It's time to open a discussion of exactly how the system should
>> evolve, what features we want to see in the UI, etc. I hope those of
>> you with an interest in the quality of Boost testing tools will join
>> us on the boost-testing list to discuss this project's future. If
>> anyone wants to run an additional testing slave, please let me know;
>> once you have Python on your system, it's extremely easy to set up.
> I'm lacking a bit of context. Just to check that I am on the same page, I
> can see what Bitten does, but what is less clear is how you envisage it to
> be used.
> What is the difference in role between being a testing slave and
> running the current run/regression.py scripts?
Not much: someone who runs a slave is playing an analogous role to the
person who runs the current run/regression.py scripts.
One small difference: people who run the current regression script
schedule it to run on a regular schedule, whereas the testing slave
automatically checks in with the server periodically to see if there
have been any changes since the last test run, so slaves don't waste
time building when nothing has happened.
The major differences between what we have now and a bitten system are
maintainability, responsiveness, and most importantly, integration
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com