On Sat, 2020-12-26 at 15:59 +0100, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > if you want to test newer compilers, you are free to do it, but maybe you can > mark tests as flaky and > exit 77 if they fail, so at least you can see failures by manually looking at > logs... > > This way you won't block migration to testing, you won't be RC buggy, but you > will have the possibility to > have test logs. > > what do you think?
In such case, I will not receive notifications about failed tests and so I can miss new errors. But I concluded that testing with GitLab CI on salsa.d.o would be better option. A test script for this can be written without need for release the package and it would not disturb anyone. On Sat, 2020-12-26 at 11:02 -0600, Steven Robbins wrote: > I believe there remain some corner cases where the build options of the > software under test may not precisely match those used in building googletest > -- leading to compile or test failures. One example is described in bug > #789267. > > That said, many projects do indeed successfully use the compiled library. So > you are probably fine. If you encounter odd failures, you can always revert > back to building gtest. Okay, thank you for comments. If something goes wrong, I will bear in mind possible differences in compilation flags.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
