Martin Wille writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
In that case, can I release 1.30.2? I don't like having the 1.30.1 debacle hanging over my head.
There are new regressions on Linux (RC_1_30_0 branch): http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux-rc-1_30_0/developer_summary_page.html
crc has regressions for gcc-3.1 and gcc-3.2.3 config, format and io have regressions for intel 7.1
According to your chart, the following libraries are all regressing:
config crc date_time format function graph io math multi_array numeric/interval numeric/ublas optional random static_assert test type_traits utility
Are these real regressions or just newly-tested compilers? Can the library authors/maintainers address these problems? Where is our maintenance wizard?
gcc.3.3.1/gcc 3.4 are newly tested.
The sixth line on the summary page says: "Note: failures for gcc-3.3.1 and gcc-3.4 are all "unexpected" because there are no 1.30.0 results to compare with."
gcc-3.4 can be ignored altogether. It isn't released yet (and very likely has bugs).
The regressions I reported in the message you responded to are real regressions.
If there is enough time left then I'll run the tests for the 1.30.0 release and gcc-3.1.1. The chart for the RC_1_30_0 branch should look better then.
Regards, m
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
