Return-Path: 
 <stdcxx-dev-return-3645-apmail-incubator-stdcxx-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 99928 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2007 22:12:06 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Jun 2007 22:12:06 -0000
Received: (qmail 11675 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jun 2007 22:12:10 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-stdcxx-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 11615 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jun 2007 22:12:10 -0000
Mailing-List: contact stdcxx-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:stdcxx-dev-help@incubator.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stdcxx-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org>
List-Id: <stdcxx-dev.incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 11604 invoked by uid 99); 5 Jun 2007 22:12:10 -0000
Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:12:10 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0
	tests=
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [208.30.140.160] (HELO moroha.quovadx.com) (208.30.140.160)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:12:05 -0700
Received: from qxvcexch01.ad.quovadx.com ([192.168.170.59])
	by moroha.quovadx.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l55MBUr6017785
	for <stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 22:11:30 GMT
Received: from [10.70.3.113] ([10.70.3.113]) by qxvcexch01.ad.quovadx.com with
 Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
	 Tue, 5 Jun 2007 16:11:12 -0600
Message-ID: <4665E016.1060401@roguewave.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:13:42 -0600
From: Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com>
Organization: Rogue Wave Software
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070221 SeaMonkey/1.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE RESULT] Re: regression test suite naming convention
References: <45f99d9b.6090200@roguewave.com>
  <44d5c0845bc.00000619mbrown@inbox.com>
  <5533204.1173893049614.javamail.jira@brutus>
  <46015174.5060101@roguewave.com> <A0F05A36982.0000098Cmbrown@inbox.com>
 <4602E092.2060401@roguewave.com>
In-Reply-To: <4602E092.2060401@roguewave.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jun 2007 22:11:12.0663 (UTC)
 FILETIME=[6D886A70:01C7A7BE]
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

I realized that we never closed this vote. Re-reading the thread
in the archive pretty much everyone was in favor of what's being
referred to as option (3) below with no objections to the
enhancement to add more detail after the section number so the
convention to follow is as follows:

   <section-number>.<dot-clause>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp

with the dot-clause being optional if the test doesn't correspond
to a single specific clause.

For the record, the vote thread starts here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg02920.html

Martin

Martin Sebor wrote:
> I also like option (3) best, so sounds like the home for
> the new regression tests is unanimously in tests/regress/
> 
> The remaining question is the file name convention. Do we
> go with <section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp or do
> we allow things like:
> 
> <section-number>.<dot-clause>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
> 
> e.g., 23.vector.cons.stdcxx-123.cpp
> 
> FWIW, I see no reason not to allow it since it provides
> additional useful detail.
> 
> Martin
> 
> Mark Brown wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ablack@roguewave.com
>>> Sent: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:56:30 -0600
>>> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
>>>
>>> If we constrain ourselves to the proposed options, my vote is for Option
>>> 2.  The reason for this vote is because it allows us to more easily
>>> determine what regression tests need to be run for a particular change.
>>>
>>> If we don't constrain ourselves to the proposed options, I wish to put
>>> forward an additional option.
>>>
>>> Option 3:
>>>     Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, using the following
>>>     naming convention:
>>>     tests/regress/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>>
>>> This option would allow us to quickly locate all regression tests, and
>>> identify which section each regression test applies to without
>>> consulting Jira.
>>
>> I also think this option is better than the one I suggested. I suppose 
>> the file name could include even more specific detail than just the 
>> section number such as the name of the container or the member 
>> function, like vector.cons and so on.
>>
>> -- Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>> --Andrew Black
>>>
>>> Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>> I'm not hearing any yay's or nay's on the proposed convention
>>>> so how about a vote to practice our consensus building skills?
>>>> Everyone is encouraged to vote, including non-committers.
>>>>
>>>> Option 1:
>>>>   Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, naming each as
>>>>   follows:
>>>>   tests/regress/stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>>>
>>>> Option 2:
>>>>   Mix regression tests in with the rest based on the clause
>>>>   in the standard and name each according to the following
>>>>   formula:
>>>>   tests/<section>/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>