Re: [boost] Re: bjam docs for boost developers?

From: Jeremy Siek (jsiek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-29 08:41:30

Hi Dave, Rene,

On Jan 29, 2004, at 12:35 AM, David Abrahams wrote:

> Jeremy Siek <jsiek_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, David Abrahams wrote:
>> dave> > but that doesn't cover stuff like "run" and "compile"
>> dave> > and "link-fail".
>> dave>
>> dave> Sorry, no.  Handholding is available on the jamboost list,  
>> though.
>>
>> I thought we required documentation with all boost libraries. Is  
>> there a
>> good reason for not documenting Boost.Build?
>
>   A. time constraints :(

Yes, that's a tough one. However, it may not take someone experienced
with bjam that long to produce the missing parts of the documentation.
After all, it is easy to use.

>   B. Version 2 has been getting ready to replace version 1 for a long
>      time now :(, and we don't want to waste time documenting version 1

How big are the differences between v1 and v2 from the user (boost  
developer)
point of view? Will some of the documentation be reusable?
I would hope that most of it would be reusable.

>
>   C. It's not a library, but a tool.  There are different
>      requirements.

There may be differences in requirements, but I would think
documentation would be one of the requirements in common.

>
> None of that's to say that it shouldn't be better documented.
> Clearly it should.
>

Right.

I volunteer to edit and revise if such documentation is written up.

Cheers,
Jeremy

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
-----------------
Jeremy Siek					http://php.indiana.edu/~jsiek/
  Ph.D. Student, Indiana Univ. B'ton	email: jsiek_at_[hidden]
  C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org)	office phone: [phone]
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
-----------------