[parameter][1.33.1] last few failures
Dave, Daniel, are the last few failures (http://engineering.meta-comm.com/boost-regression/CVS-RC_1_33_0/developer/is...) of the parameter lib fixable or should they be marked up? Thanks, John.
"John Maddock" <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> writes:
Dave, Daniel, are the last few failures (http://engineering.meta-comm.com/boost-regression/CVS-RC_1_33_0/developer/is...) of the parameter lib fixable or should they be marked up?
They might be fixable (they probably are), but regardless, I don't see why they should need to be marked up: it's a new test, so it doesn't represent a regression. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
They might be fixable (they probably are), but regardless, I don't see why they should need to be marked up: it's a new test, so it doesn't represent a regression.
Understood, I'd just like to see 1.33.1 go all green so it can be released :-) If that compiler is a release requirement, then shouldn't all tests either pass or be marked up? (and no that's not a rhetorical question!). Thanks, John.
On Oct 24, 2005, at 4:43 AM, John Maddock wrote:
They might be fixable (they probably are), but regardless, I don't see why they should need to be marked up: it's a new test, so it doesn't represent a regression.
Understood, I'd just like to see 1.33.1 go all green so it can be released :-)
If that compiler is a release requirement, then shouldn't all tests either pass or be marked up? (and no that's not a rhetorical question!).
Yes. We need zero *failures*, not just zero regressions, to roll the next release. Doug
Douglas Gregor <doug.gregor@gmail.com> writes:
On Oct 24, 2005, at 4:43 AM, John Maddock wrote:
They might be fixable (they probably are), but regardless, I don't see why they should need to be marked up: it's a new test, so it doesn't represent a regression.
Understood, I'd just like to see 1.33.1 go all green so it can be released :-)
If that compiler is a release requirement, then shouldn't all tests either pass or be marked up? (and no that's not a rhetorical question!).
Yes. We need zero *failures*, not just zero regressions, to roll the next release.
Okay, nailing those now. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
"John Maddock" <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> writes:
They might be fixable (they probably are), but regardless, I don't see why they should need to be marked up: it's a new test, so it doesn't represent a regression.
Understood, I'd just like to see 1.33.1 go all green so it can be released :-)
Should be done now. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Understood, I'd just like to see 1.33.1 go all green so it can be released :-)
Should be done now.
How about the last gcc-2.95.3 failure: http://engineering.meta-comm.com/boost-regression/CVS-RC_1_33_0/developer/ou... Thanks, John.
"John Maddock" <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> writes:
Understood, I'd just like to see 1.33.1 go all green so it can be released :-)
Should be done now.
How about the last gcc-2.95.3 failure: http://engineering.meta-comm.com/boost-regression/CVS-RC_1_33_0/developer/ou...
Ach, somehow failed to copy the fix to the branch. Done now. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
participants (3)
-
David Abrahams -
Douglas Gregor -
John Maddock