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

"David Abrahams" wrote in message news:87hcqs9p9d.fsf@valverde.peloton...

on Fri May 04 2007, "Gennadiy Rozental" wrote:

...

"David Abrahams" wrote in message news:87lkg4d5sj.fsf@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