From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-12 14:05:47
Robert Ramey wrote:
> Rene Rivera wrote:
>> Robert Ramey wrote:
>>> Is there a reason that bjam and the rest of boost build can't be
>>> handled as any other library as regards to testing and release?
>>>
>>> Specifically, I would like to see somethiing like:
>>>
>>> libs/bjam
>>> /build
>>> Jamfile
>>> /test
>>> Jamfile // testing bjam build and test
>>> compile-fail.cpp
>>> assert-fail.cpp
>>> ...
>>>
>>> So that bjam is automatically tested on all platforms when ever its
>>> changed. Of course this test/build would be run using the "released
>>> bjam" which would be updated when show stopping bugs are fixed and
>>> after the
>>> fixed version has been tested.
>>>
>>> It might also provide a place to test tool configuraiton files and
>>> the like
>>
>> I don't understand what you are asking. The current testing uses a
>> "frozen" version of bjam with the understanding that we want testing
>> tools to be as stable as possible.
>
> I'm aware if this and agree with it.
>
> What I'm asking is for is that changes to bjam, process_jam_log, etc as
> well as jam files
> be subjected to the same testing procedure that other boost libraries are
> subjected to.
As I've already said, this is planned. Modulo the fact that the testing
procedure, necessary, cannot be exactly same, since there's no
'compile_fail' that can meaningfully be done. And generally, directory
structure is unrelated to this.
- Volodya