[boost] Re: [regression] New Inspection Report [threads] Compilation problems on CW and others...

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-17 19:51:05

"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:47:57 -0500, Rene Rivera wrote
>> > Don't know... I just ran the default for the inspect tool which does all 
>> > the checks. You tell me; Should I filter that out?
>> 
>> OK, taking to myself ;-) I ran it again without that check. I guess 
>> that since we are unlikely to go change >3900 files in a few days 
>> it's pointless even if it was a requirement.
>
> We've never enforced that every last file contain licensing information --
> particularly the documentation and Jamfiles.  By my eye this is the majority
> of the problems.  
>
> I'm much more worried about the tabs and file lengths.  I believe 31 chars is
> the maximum allowed on CD-ROMs and MAC platforms.  And, of course, tabs are
> evil...
>
> So if we wanted to filter down the report I suggest we throw out all the
> licensing issues...

I respectfully disagree.  Improving our licensing consistency is an
important goal for Boost, and leaving off licenses/copyrights is a
real barrier to adoption.  Let's not allow it to get worse, at least.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com