From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-26 03:56:26
Roland Schwarz wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> (2) applies to graph and thread libraries. I've verified that the
>> mentioned tests exist on RC; if the library authors believe those changes
>> should not be on RC, just say.
>> + <mark-expected-failures>
>> + <test name="test_barrier_lib"/>
>> + <toolset name="msvc-8.0"/>
>> + <note author="Aleksey Gurtovoy" refid="6"/>
>> + </mark-expected-failures>
>> +
>> + <mark-expected-failures>
>> + <test name="test_thread"/>
>> + <toolset name="msvc-7.1"/>
>> + <note author="Aleksey Gurtovoy" refid="6"/>
>> + </mark-expected-failures>
>>
>> <mark-expected-failures reason="?">
>> <test name="*_lib"/>
>
>
> The markup for thread were correct on RC_. Don't know what these on HEAD
> are.
>
> For Boost.Thread we currently do have the unfortunate situation that the
> "real" development is not on HEAD but on thread_rewrite branch. (I know
> this is odd, but this is how things are at the moment.) This branch also
> does not cover the entire tree, but only the thread subdirectories. We
> (Anthony and me) are planning to move the thread_rewrite to SVN trunk
> after the release to not introduce even more ambiguities before the 1.34
> release.
>
> David told me that the plan after 1.34 release is to make the current
> RC_1_34_0 branch the HEAD branch on upcoming SVN.
It's the first time I hear this; was this ever discussed?
> The HEAD branch for
> Boost.Thread currently is kind of "orphaned" and given the above I
> cannot see much sense maintaining it.
>
> In case of differences between HEAD and RC_1_34_0 currently it is safer
> to leave RC_1_34_0 as is and forward differences to HEAD.
Hmm, at this moment, failures markup on HEAD and RC_1_34_0 are exactly
the same. Do you suggest the above markup should be removed from RC_1_34_0,
or what?
- Volodya