
Robert Ramey 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 agree. As a developer, I want to see the breakage as early as possible, and "no continuos testing" model would prevent me from that. The last thing I want is to deal with accumulated failures when I wasn't expecting it. IMO the asnwer to a long testing cycle is a) incremental cylces, with a full rebuild once a week or something similar (here at Meta, for instance, are currently doing full rebuild on every cycle); b) distributed testing of libraries, with the following merging of results into a single report. -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering