Peter Dimov wrote: > Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote: > > Peter Dimov wrote: > >> > >> Also, please note that I don't mind the _developer summary_ being > >> "aggressive" in its pass/fail reports. There are no "expected > >> failures" there as far as I'm concerned. Every failure needs to be > >> reported in red, with pass->fail transitions emphasized. > > > > Do you mean that there are no expected failures for the smart_ptr > > library (which we'll take care of soon), or something else? 'Cause > > I, for instance, definitely would like to see a CVS health report in > > terms of regressions rather than absolute failures. > > I meant that my objections applied to the user summary, not > the developer summary,
OK, I understood that one. > and that I personally don't need a way to mask a 'fail' on the > developer summary, even if I expect a test to fail on this > configuration. Interesting. Given the total number of failures we have, it's practically impossible to track the regressions if the "expected" failures are not masked, though - especially when changes are made to something as basic as 'config' or 'type_traits'. We can easily provide such report, I am just trying to determine what are the use cases. Could you please elaborate on yours? Aleksey _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
