On 10/04/2015 08:49 AM, Raffi Enficiaud wrote:
Le 04/10/15 13:38, John Maddock a écrit :
On 04/10/2015 12:09, Bjorn Reese wrote:
As many others have said, Boost.Test is "special" in that the majority of Boost's tests depend on it. Even breakages in develop are extremely painful in that they effectively halt progress for any Boost library which uses Test for testing.
Also special in the sense that boost.test cannot take full benefit from the current test dashboard setup: we have to test all libraries before being able to push to develop
Ideally yes, but in practicality you should be able to determine whether or not a change to Boost Test is working properly by only testing a very few libraries which you know use Boost Test's facilities extensively. Furthermore this situation will make absolutely no difference whether you use C++03 or C++11.
, which means hours and hours of testing and infrastructure deployment/maintenance for a single push to a branch that is supposed to help us develop boost.test. To be frank, I do not think that this requirement on boost.test makes sense.
First you claim a completely unreasonable practical requirement and then you say it makes no sense.
As for testing in C++03 mode - that's easy, just use GCC's default compiler mode ;-)
I have also a similar setup on OSX, but this does not prevent us from making mistakes, and capturing those mistakes before it goes to master is the very purpose of the develop branch.
What does what John suggested have to do with the 'develop' branch versus the 'master' branch ?