At 03:51 PM 2/11/2004, David Abrahams wrote:
Well, perhaps we should ask whose responsibility it is to watch the Boost.Python regression logs for VC6.
I doubt there's any assigned responsibility. I was watching, but then I had to travel and lost connectivity. I did expect that Beman was going to look things over and make sure there were no new regressions before the release went out. I hypothesize that part of the problem is that he's not looking at the meta-comm tests, which include Boost.Python and Spirit and show regressions against the previous release, rather than just the last test run. I have been worried for some time that test effectiveness is diluted by having two reporting/display systems... did it bite us here?
No, actually I do look at the meta-comm tests. In fact I review every test on every platform. It takes quite a while. I was also concerned about the Python tests on Linux, and posted a query on January 27th:
Here are the three tests failing gcc 3.3.1 and 3.3.2:
* iterator interoperable_fail
* python embedding
You replied:
This one worries me a little. I'll look into it.
Anyhow, I think your point about multiple reporting is a good one. The volume of tests is just too high. Fewer, more comprehensive, tests would be easier to monitor. Also fewer compilers. Do we really need to test every version of GCC and VC++ for the last four years? If our testing was more focused, we could cycle the tests more often too. --Beman