Re: [Boost-testing] [1.37.0] Compilers for release testing?

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-25 07:50:39

David Abrahams wrote:
> on Sun Aug 24 2008, Beman Dawes <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> For 1.36.0, our release test primary compilers were:
>>
>>    * GCC 4.01 on Mac OS X 10.4.10 with both Intel and Power PC
>>    * GCC 4.2.3 on Ubuntu Linux 8.04.1
>>    * HP C/aC++ B3910B A.06.17 on HP-UX 64-bit
>>    * Visual C++ 9.0 SP1 beta, 8.0 SP1, and 7.1, all on Windows XP SP-2
> 
> Just a terminology nit: IMO these should be called "test platforms," not
> "test compilers," and they should include the machine's ISA.  Testing on
> Darwin PPC is different from testing on Darwin x86 is different from
> testing on Darwin amd64, etc.  That kind of variation applies to all the
> OSes we test on, IIRC.

Yes, agreed.

> 
>> Could we have volunteers to run the Ubuntu Linux/GCC tests and the
>> Windows/msvc-8.0 tests? If someone could take those off my hands, it
>> would free resources to add additional compilers.
> 
> I could, but I really want to dedicate my testing resources to a system
> using the cmake toolchain, but IIUC the regular testing process is not
> doing that yet.

IIUC, CMake builds and tests are working, but reporting hasn't gotten 
attention yet and I'm not sure that anyone is even working on reporting.

Dave, I'd really like to see you apply your skills to helping get a 
reporting system going for CMake based testing. We've got plenty of 
volunteers who can do a great job with bjam testing, but no so many with 
your strong sense of the needs for test reporting.

>> If I don't have to run any tests, it will free resources enough to
>> expand the list by two or three compilers for 1.37.0. The idea is to
>> provide coverage for popular compiler/operating system combinations
>> not currently being tested. Anyone care to volunteer?
>>
>> I'd prefer volunteers who have experience testing on trunk, and been
>> able to keep their test setup running reliably.  They also need to
>> have a bit of time to monitor the Boost testing list.
>>
>> No more than two tests per tester, to limit the inconvenience if a
>> tester goes down.
> 
> Do you mean two platforms per tester? ;-)

Right:-)

--Beman