David Abrahams wrote:
"Robert Ramey" <ramey@rrsd.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
"Robert Ramey" <ramey@rrsd.com> writes:
Please do what's required to bring the overall Boost testing time back down to something reasonable.
I can do this. Should this be RC_1_33_0 or head?
Both. We're testing them both pending the release of 1.33.1
If I recall correctly, the idea was that there would be a release of 1.33.1 30 September 2005. I will be leaving town this sunday 2 October. Do we really want to mess with something that's been this way for a year and will only go on for couple more days at this time? That doesn't seem wise to me.
A main cause of this problem bjam dependency analysis re-runs all tests on Library X even if library X hasn't changed.
No it doesn't.
Yes it does.
Here is the scenario. Library X uses something from library Y. Library Y is changed. This triggers a rebuild on Library X. This in turn triggers a re-build and re-test on Library X. At least that's way it looks like it works to me.
That is correct, but what you said made it sound like X would be retested unconditionally.
The idea that we should not be re-testing libraries when their dependencies change is debatable, but that's a different discussion.
Well, if we weren't doing that we wouldn't have a problem. So if its not the same discussion but it is related. Of course we can test less. But the root of the problem is that probably only a small percentage of the effort invested in testing is actually testing anything. I know I've brought this up before but made no headway so I won't harp on it anymore. Robert Ramey