Rene Rivera wrote:
If we already have an extensive test suite, why not run it? What's the downside here?
The downside is that it increases the burden on the test system and testers.
Why is that - doe it take a huge amount of time to run? or what?
What I've wanted to do for more than a year now is to have a separate pool of testers,
why can't we have it as "one more library" in the same testing setup we have now? To me the the only difference would be that rather in directory ../libs/serializaton it would be in directory ../tools/bjam or? What am I missing here?
likely with some overlap with current testers, to do separate tool, documentation, and other testing.
My view would be to make the directory structure of tool directories similar to those of libraries and just add the tool test suite to that of the libraries. That is, I think the distinction of "tools" and "libraries" should be very much smaller than it is now and that this would simplify a lot of questions: testing, where to put documentation, where to put Jamfiles and how to run them, etc. The library testing model works - lets build on that!
Until very recently I didn't have the resources to try and set up such a separate testing cycle as I was devoting all of one of my machines to trunk testing results.
I would hope that we don't need a separate testing cycle. Why would we need this? We have two now trunk and release which seems fine to me. Robert Ramey