From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-04 20:32:27
"Rene Rivera" <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:4664A17F.6080204_at_gmail.com...
> Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>> "Rene Rivera" <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:46647897.5030204_at_gmail.com...
>>>>>> The proposal seems to assume infinite resources in testing.
>>>> Which particular part?
>>> On-demand testing, testing of breaking-stable branch, continuous testing
>>> of stable branch, all with high-availability and high-. Currently we can
>>> only manage partial testing of *1* branch, in one build variation. And
>>> now we are talking of testing at least three branches at once.
>>
>> My solution doesn't require ANY of that. Let me repeat NONE.
>
> Gennadiy, with all due respect, I wasn't talking about your solution. I
> was talking about Beman's proposal. I think it is a wasted effort to
> consider proposals and solutions that I can read concise documentation
> for. It's almost impossible to comment on them otherwise. So for all
> those thinking that their way is better, please write it up and we can
> consider them individually.
Most of is here:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/158491
and some follow-up posts
[.....]
But you are write. I should put it somewhere publically available.
>> Let's me clarify again: do you believe 1.34.0 can't be used as stable
>> starting point? If not, why?
>
> Yes, it can't be used for a stable starting point. Because it is not
> proven stable, with testing, under the conditions users would operate
> under.
I got what you are trying to say. What I am trying to say is though it's
good and in general right direction, I don't see it happening without
support of several yet unknown new tools. I believe we should phase it. and
this particular requirements can be phased for later stages.
Gennadiy