David Abrahams wrote:
on Wed Aug 06 2008, Beman Dawes <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
Just spoke with Rene about this ...
Eric Niebler wrote:
How come the "report time" on nearly every page of release test results is dated July 15th?
For example: http://www.boost.org/development/tests/release/developer/summary_release.htm...
AFAIK, that's the wrong page to be looking at. The page I use to make decisions is http://beta.boost.org/development/tests/release/developer/summary.html Whew, thanks Beman! How do you get to that page? I go to boost.org, click on "Development", and then on "Release Summary". I don't look at www.boost.org, because I assume it applies to the current release.
Instead I look at beta.boost.org, because I assume it applies to the release under development.
Can we expect developers (and other interested parties) to figure out that they need to look at a hidden site to find this information? And doesn't the fact that it's a beta mean that it could churn and make the results unavailable or wrong without warning? Shouldn't our most important testing results be hosted in a stable environment? It's common to have a "development" or "developers" link that takes you to materials about the unreleased code on the front page of a project's site.
Sounds like the current arrangement is not very user-friendly. Can we change it?
Perhaps you should read my various replies in this thread. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail