Michael Goldshteyn wrote:
"Vladimir Prus" <ghost@cs.msu.su> wrote in message news:E1HZ27f-0007ib-DI@zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su...
I disagree. There's no way we can release anything this century if we keep on checking in things are branch is frozen. The time window for commits is over at this point. If this patch breaks one of release compilers, we'll spend another week just to get back to zero regressions.
The final decision is up to Thomas, of course, but I hope that no code changes will be allowed, no matter what.
- Volodya
I just want to add my 1.5 cents to this. I want to see this build get released as much as anyone. But, let us not confuse the regression test's output of no regressions with the fact that there is in fact a regression.
Indeed! Because there's no "output of no regressions". The value of zero reported currently is the value of *unexpected* failures. If a failure is marked as expected, it's not reported, even if that failures was not present in Boost 1.33.1. I'm sure that there are regressions that are marked expected at the moment. Previously, we decided on this list that on a certain date, all remaining failures will be marked as expected. Now, you're pointing out that we have a regression, for which we don't even have a test. In light of that decision, we probably can add a test for that problem, and immediately mark all failures of said test as expected. But that would not be very helpful. I don't think we should give this problem any bonus points just because it's not discovered by the tests yet. - Volodya