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.
Gennadiy.
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
[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
However, problems with Boost.Test broke a lot of Metrowerks tests.
For some reason I could not locate Metrowerks compilation errors on Test
Status page.
As for Metrowerks linking errors I have a suspicion that it has something to
do with Metrowerks toolset.
Also I could not locate errors from
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
At 04:19 PM 2/13/2003, Rene Rivera wrote:
When I got back, random_test had been looping for six hours. Sigh. I
don't
know that's related.
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
At 05:12 PM 2/13/2003, Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:
However, problems with Boost.Test broke a lot of Metrowerks tests.
For some reason I could not locate Metrowerks compilation errors on Test
Status page. As for Metrowerks linking errors I have a suspicion that it
has something to do with
