RE: [boost] Inspection report updated

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-01 11:12:15

At 07:38 PM 11/30/2003, Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:

 >> See http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/inspection_report.html
 >Boost.Test:
 >
 >Tabs:                eliminated

Thanks.

 >broken link:         will fix before release

Good.

 >unlinked file:       report is wrong

Hum... I'd like to debug the report. Can you tell me what file links to the 
supposedly "unlinked" file? There must be something about the link that I'm 
not parsing correctly.

 >filename > 31 chars: I would really hate to change these file names. I
 >create docs manually and theses names correspond to appropreate component 

 >of the library. Is it so nessesary?

We need to make a decision. It seems to come down to CD/DVD file systems. 
Do we want the Boost directory hierarchy to be directly representable on 
ISO-9660 level 2 and 3 file systems? With or without Juliet extensions?

There are three aspects of that:

   * File and directory names <= 32 chars (or 128 chars with Juliet)

   * Max directory depth of 8 (more with Juliet, exact depth unknown)

   * Max path string size 255 (need to double check that figure)

I'm inclined to vote for Juliet. It seems like that's where all the major 
players are headed. You won't have to change anything if that is the 
decision.

--Beman