1.33 release regression results -- 'extra compilers'
Why are digital mars, como and other 'non-required' compilers in the regressions results page ( http://tinyurl.com/cdlxk )? I was expecting to see an all green condition and instead I see a bunch of failures we never really tried to resolve. I think we should remove these from the user pages.... Jeff
Jeff Garland writes:
Why are digital mars, como and other 'non-required' compilers in the regressions results page ( http://tinyurl.com/cdlxk )?
Because the release was tested on them and many people would like to see what's the status of these?
I was expecting to see an all green condition
If you follow the "Release View" link at the top, you'll see the report showing only the status of the required toolsets.
and instead I see a bunch of failures we never really tried to resolve. I think we should remove these from the user pages....
On what basis? -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:07:38 -0500, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote
Jeff Garland writes:
Why are digital mars, como and other 'non-required' compilers in the regressions results page ( http://tinyurl.com/cdlxk )?
Because the release was tested on them and many people would like to see what's the status of these?
Shouldn't these be on the 'developer link' ?
I was expecting to see an all green condition
If you follow the "Release View" link at the top, you'll see the report showing only the status of the required toolsets.
I see -- I believe this is where the mainpage link should send 'users'.
and instead I see a bunch of failures we never really tried to resolve. I think we should remove these from the user pages....
On what basis?
It's just extra noise for most users -- not many people use dmc or tru64. And it could reduce their confidence in boost... Jeff
At 21:28 2005-08-12, you wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:07:38 -0500, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote
Jeff Garland writes:
Why are digital mars, como and other 'non-required' compilers in the regressions results page ( http://tinyurl.com/cdlxk )?
Because the release was tested on them and many people would like to see what's the status of these?
Shouldn't these be on the 'developer link' ?
I was expecting to see an all green condition
If you follow the "Release View" link at the top, you'll see the report showing only the status of the required toolsets.
I see -- I believe this is where the mainpage link should send 'users'.
and instead I see a bunch of failures we never really tried to resolve. I think we should remove these from the user pages....
On what basis?
It's just extra noise for most users -- not many people use dmc or tru64. And it could reduce their confidence in boost...
if we took out all the "expected failures" it would reduce their confidence in most compilers
Jeff _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com The five most dangerous words in the English language: "There oughta be a law"
Jeff Garland writes:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:07:38 -0500, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote
Jeff Garland writes:
Why are digital mars, como and other 'non-required' compilers in the regressions results page ( http://tinyurl.com/cdlxk )?
Because the release was tested on them and many people would like to see what's the status of these?
Shouldn't these be on the 'developer link' ?
I don't see why. These people are not Boost developers.
I was expecting to see an all green condition
If you follow the "Release View" link at the top, you'll see the report showing only the status of the required toolsets.
I see -- I believe this is where the mainpage link should send 'users'.
We could do that, but see below.
and instead I see a bunch of failures we never really tried to resolve. I think we should remove these from the user pages....
On what basis?
It's just extra noise for most users -- not many people use dmc or tru64. And it could reduce their confidence in boost...
I tend to share the sentiment, but I'd still prefer the main page/release notes to have direct links to both sets of pages -- correspondingly marked up, of course. -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:13:28 -0500, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote
Jeff Garland writes:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:07:38 -0500, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote
Jeff Garland writes:
Why are digital mars, como and other 'non-required' compilers in the regressions results page ( http://tinyurl.com/cdlxk )?
Because the release was tested on them and many people would like to see what's the status of these?
Shouldn't these be on the 'developer link' ?
I don't see why. These people are not Boost developers.
Well I guess that points out a problem with the 'titles' (developer and user) we use to divide the results. We really have 'supported' or 'required' compilers and 'the rest'.
and instead I see a bunch of failures we never really tried to resolve. I think we should remove these from the user pages....
On what basis?
It's just extra noise for most users -- not many people use dmc or tru64. And it could reduce their confidence in boost...
I tend to share the sentiment, but I'd still prefer the main page/release notes to have direct links to both sets of pages -- correspondingly marked up, of course.
I'm fine with that although it introduces more stuff on the frontpage which I'm generally against. What we really need to do is rework the compiler_status.html page to explain the distinctions and groupings better (it has other problems too). In the meantime, however, I'd still like to see the release status page routed only to the 'required compilers' page for the reasons previously cited. I think that optimizes the 90% usage case not the 10% case... Jeff
"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> writes:
Well I guess that points out a problem with the 'titles' (developer and user) we use to divide the results. We really have 'supported' or 'required' compilers and 'the rest'.
That sounds right. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
participants (4)
-
Aleksey Gurtovoy -
David Abrahams -
Jeff Garland -
Victor A. Wagner Jr.