Rene Rivera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [2003-02-13] Beman Dawes wrote: > >>At 11:53 AM 2/13/2003, Gennadiy Rozental wrote: >> >> >> > Hi, everybody >> >> > >> >> > Today I committed second revision to Boost.Test library. >> >> >> >> Wow, is that a good idea one day before we branch for release? >> > >> >I should have done it week ago, but was really sick. Anyway, It does not >> >contain anything that should break backward compartibility. >> >>However, problems with Boost.Test broke a lot of Metrowerks tests. >> >>--Beman >> >>PS: I started the Win32 tests running this morning, and then left right >>away for a meeting. >> >>When I got back, random_test had been looping for six hours. Sigh. I don't >>know that's related. >> >>I'll run the Win32 tests several times a day as long as lots of changes are >>being checked in. > > I had similar problems with the OpenBSD tests. It ran last night and I woke > up to it still hung, using 99% CPU, in one test (thread/test_condition). > Killed it and a few others after that to make it complete. > > Since this is release time I'll try and run the tests more frequently, twice > a day at least, until things get better.
Didn't something just like this happen with Boost.Test just before 1.29.0 was released? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost