"Robert Ramey" <ramey@rrsd.com> writes:
Dave Abrahams wrote:
maybe we need to move to a different model wherein the test library's own tests are run on a CVS branch of the code (?) so that Gennadiy can see and deal with his problems before they are merged into the main trunk and break everything else?
Clearly, test the test (meta-testing ?) is a special category. I needs to be staged to be tested itself before being used to test other stuff.
I believe boost testing is going to be an issue in the near future do the fact that testing time is getting longer and longer and longer.
I believe we will have to move to an "on demand" model for most testing while reserving "total coverage" testing for just prior to release.
I don't. You can get test results for any library on any compiler that's being tested daily within 24 hours. Some compilers are tested every 12 hours (see meta-comm). I don't see why that should be insufficient.
Although this wouldn't definitively address the issue raised it would help.
I don't see how. The test library breaks and that breaks all the other libraries. How will it help if tests are run less often?
As only those libraries currently being tested would suffer due to dependencies on other code.
The libraries still suffer; the tests just stop telling us so. IMO sticking our heads in the sand is not a good approach to testing.
It would also save lots of time and permit test time to keep from becoming an issue.
It would also prevent problems from being seen. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com