At 07:37 AM 8/11/2003, David Abrahams wrote: >Aleksey Gurtovoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Beman Dawes wrote: >>> Assuming I'm release manager for 1.31.0, I'm going to publish explicit >>> release criteria for key platform/compiler pairs. Basically, the >>> criteria will be 100% accounting for all failures on those >>> platform/compiler pairs. >> >> While I totally support the failures markup goal, I would like to see >> _the_ release criteria to include "no regressions from the previous >> release" item as well, preferrably for all non-beta compilers that are >> currently under regression testing. Especially since now we have tools >> to ensure it. > >I worry a little about requiring library authors not to regress on >compiler combinations they don't test with. For example, who is going >to address the one lexical_cast failure that's plaguing the 1.30.2 >release? It's only on intel-7.1 with STLPort and looks for all the >world like a config problem.
It can be very time consuming to track down the exact reason for failures. Thus we should focus our 1.31.0 effort on a small number of widely used compilers which don't have a lot of problems.
For a lightly used toolset like intel-7.1 with STLPort, "looks for all the world like a config problem" seems like a good enough resolution to me.
--Beman
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
