Re: [Boost-users] [BoostCon07][testing] Session reminder.

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-05 01:31:40

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:87hcqs9p9d.fsf_at_valverde.peloton...
>
> on Fri May 04 2007, "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental-AT-thomson.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:87lkg4d5sj.fsf_at_valverde.peloton...
>>>
>>> I just want to point out that the BoostCon "Testing Boost" sprint is
>>> about our testing processes and infrastructure, not about the
>>> structure of Boost itself and its release process.  I agree that the
>>> latter is an important topic and I hope we'll discuss it at BoostCon,
>>> but it's a much tougher issue (to form consensus on, and to solve)
>>> than is the topic of the sprint.  In order to ensure that the sprint
>>> is successful,
>>>
>>>  I strongly request that in Rene's session, we concentrate on the
>>>  topic at hand.
>>
>> While in general I agree, IMO discussing how we are going to test
>> the libraries before deciding how the process is organized in
>> general is like putting cart in front of a horse. Part of my
>> proposition directly affect the way testing needs to be organized.
>
> Clearly.  And a whole bunch of other things.  It's a radical, sweeping

Not soo radical.

> change to how we do things that raises lots of knotty questions.

It does. They can be resolved though IMO.

> This cart is already being driven by an ox, as it were, and we can't
> afford to buy a horse yet, nor can we easily agree that your horse is
> the best way to pull the cart.  I hope we can upgrade the cart much
> sooner than we could agree on all that, and I know the process of
> doing so will stand us in good stead no matter how we decide to change
> the release process.

I don't dare to assume my proposition is best possible. I just would like us 
to consider it.

> There seems to be, more-or-less, a consensus on the list that in the
> near term, we'll be working with a variation of the plan Beman posted
> some time ago, which is already quite different from what we're doing
> now.  We only have a short time to work on the testing problem in
> Aspen, and IMO much too little time there to agree on your plan.
>
> Again, In order to avoid derailing the sprint, I ask that we limit the
> scope of what we're considering there to the topic of the sprint.

Again. I don't insist it to be discussed here and now. Though as I said in a 
long term this is the way to go IMO. The only reason I brought it up now is 
that it would affect the testing big time.

Gennadiy