Dave Abrahams wrote:
on Mon Dec 17 2012, Julian Gonggrijp wrote:
Dave Abrahams wrote:
[...] In the meantime, I expect to test every commit on any branch.
Wouldn't the latter be a giant amount of work for the testers?
No, it will happen automatically. Testers aren't going to have to intercede.
That's good to know.
I do subscribe to the idea that testing should be configurable by the developers. I'm not sure whether a file that is subject to version control would be a wise way to provide for that configurability.
We've thought it through for years and IMO it's an extremely attractive option. Having a record of exactly what was tested alongside the commit seems like a good idea to me. What is your objection?
My objection was that test configuration might change in unanticipated ways when branches with very different testing histories are merged back together. But I didn't think of the inherent advantage in keeping a testing history; that's a very convincing argument. I'm sorry if I seemed to disregard the hard work that has already been invested. I realise I entered this discussion as an outsider.
[...] We can avoid this problem by allowing developers to decide which version of individual dependencies they want to test against. In general one might want to stick with the last released Boost version, but occasionally one might need features developed during the current Boost release cycle, in which case the .json file could specify a later revision.
Well that seems even better. I'd vote for this approach. -Julian