On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:47:56 -0600, Rene Rivera wrote
My goal is to have it doing Linux regressions (gcc-release) by next week. I taking it carefully, and hence slowly, as it's crucial to reduce the chances of any test system from breaking. So I do some changes and let the thing run for a day to see if anything strange happens.
After it's running on my limited setup we can talk about expanding to other brave testers out there :-)
Great!
Proxies can solve most firewall problems, so I wouldn't worry too much about that.
Ok, I'll accept that it might work if the slave goes outbound to the master to connect. I don't really understand the architecture, but don't worry about explaining it...I'll read the docs when I get a free moment.
Definitely. I made the suggestion earlier that we should break up the testing so that some testers can devote resources to only testing subsets of Boost:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.testing/392
(I know it's a long post.. The scalability section is what I'm referring to.)
No problem on the length -- somehow I missed this mail completely. Obviously you and I agree on the need to split things up. I (with others) have suggested before that a big help would be splitting out the 'dll' versus 'static'. I've also suggested we consider standardizing different levels 'basic' vs 'exhaustive', etc. I won't rediscuss it all, but I think there are other things we can do to improve the testing scalability... http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64471.php Jeff ps: sorry, it's a long thread with lots of back and forth ;-)