on Sun Oct 07 2007, Gennadiy Rozental <rogeeff-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
Henrik Sundberg <storangen <at> gmail.com> writes:
2007/10/7, Jeff Garland <jeff <at> crystalclearsoftware.com>:
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
Additionally it's important to split new failures from regression. New failures we just mark as expected on day of release and ignore. At the
Well, this doesn't quite work for me. If a new library can't pass tests on the 'primary platform list' then it needs to be removed from the release because it's not ready.
The definition of "New Failure" might be problematic. E.g. If a test is added in 1.35, due to a bug found (and not fixed) in 1.34, a new failure occurs in the test output. If functionality with poor quality is added to an old library, then the code should not be accepted, not just marked as an expected failure.
Why?
What ff I added feature that works on gcc 4.0, but do not have time to port it on VC 7.1? I've added corresponding test. No egressions appear. IMO what should be done is that this test should be marked as expected to fail everywhere where it fails
Why? Just to get a green field of tests? There's a difference between features that can't be made to work due to compiler bugs and those that you just haven't had the time to implement portably. The former is not expected to ever pass for that platform unless someone discovers new hacks. The latter is essentially in a (hopefully temporarily) broken state, and shouldn't look like a healthy test.
and next release I'll try to port it to VC7.1. Next to CW and so on.
If we have a set of primary release platforms, I want to be able to claim that Boost is portable to those environments, not that some features work here and there. If you can't get the feature working on all the release platforms, it should be considered "not yet portable" and held back from the release. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com