Nicola Musatti wrote:
Hallo, this is really meant for Alisdair, but I thought that others might be interested. As far as I'm concerned I believe there's not much more that I can do in the 1.34 timeframe, so I consider the remaining failures as 'expected'.
Before looking into how to actually mark them as such I wanted to know if anybody is still working on Borland support for BCB2006.
I had reached a similar conclusion, but will be taking a proper look next week (I hope, workload is very compressed at the moment) My initial response would be: Mark up any expected failures that are common with BCB 5.64. Mark up libraries that are not supported, such as graph, Python, uBlas and Wave. Then anything left is a regression, and should be explained or resolved. We can put a note in any regressions marked up in the XML. Given there are known regressions in 5.81 that are fixed by the compiler in 5.82, I would suggest we focus on the latter. In fact, I would suggest Metacomm stop testing on 5.81 now, especially if it will mean a faster testing cycle, and mark 5.82 as no-longer beta. -- AlisdairM