"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> writes:
On Sat, 22 May 2004 13:18:41 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
I like the idea of specifying the test level (basic, torture, concept).
I am opposed to the idea of requiring humans to initiate the right tests, at least without proof that mechanically-initiated tests are unworkable. I don't think we've proven that yes.
They shouldn't be human initiated -- just configured to one level or another. Now obviously a human would need to intervene to reset the level, but that would only be in the case of ramping up to release, adding a new library, adding a new compiler, or a specific author request. I believe this would be rather infrequent.
Basically, right now we have no way of setting up a Jamfile that can satisfy the need to have full up tests for new compilers, etc and a basic set of quick tests...short of replacing the Jamfile all the time.
I don't see that as a need, or neccessarily an advantage. Only outdated tests get run. That said, of course we do have a way: # foo.jam if $(Not_Defined) { # torture tests go here } In what way is commenting out the "if" line and checking in the jamfile significantly different from other mechanisms one might use to alter the set of tests that get run? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com