Peter Dimov wrote: >>> Beman's approach, where unexpected failures were automatically >>> determined by comparing the current run with aprevious run, seems to >>> cope better with this scenario, and requires no manual input. >> >> Does it? What if the previous run was a total failure - what the next >> one is going to show? > > Nothing will go wrong; it's only pass->fail transitions that are > emphasized.
But that's my point. If current run was a disaster, in the next one - which can happen an hour later - the new failures won't be emphasized since they are not new anymore - even although they _are_ regressions and need to be fixed! > False pass->fail transitions can only happen for > compile-fail/link-fail tests that aren't that significant. > > >> IMO it can work only if you have a trusted snapshot of what is >> considered a "good" CVS state and you update it "pessimistically" - >> that is, remove the expected failures that are now passing and leave >> everything else intact - automatically, of course. And that's exactly >> what we are going to do. > > I didn't realize that the plan was to automatically manage the expected > failures. It wasn't at the very beginning, but thanks to your and other people's comments our understanding evolved, and so did the plan :). Thank you, Aleksey _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
