Robert Ramey wrote:
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Robert Ramey wrote: Let me try to have all "i" dotted and "t" crossed:
1. Build.Build has extensive testsuite.
good.
2. It would be nice to have it run together with library tests, to improve Boost.Build quality on some platforms where it's not actively tested by users. It will help Boost.Build users, as well folks who are both C++ Boost users and Boost.Build users.
great, then let's do it.
We've been planning to "do it" for a long time now. But wanting and doing are usually far part ;-)
Adding Boost.Build tests to the mix will only mean the breakage will be detected somewhat earlier and be somewhat easier to figure.
which would be quite helpful it seems to me.
So, adding Boost.Build tests to the test results is not something C++ Boost users or developers should care very much about.
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. What I've wanted to do for more than a year now is to have a separate pool of testers, likely with some overlap with current testers, to do separate tool, documentation, and other testing. 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. And now that Noel has taken over that burden I can set this up. But of course, doing is still not close to wanting, since this is not a high-priority it won't get done in the near future. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail