[boost] Re: [1.32 Release] Draft tarballs are available

From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-01 02:29:23

Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> Eric Niebler writes:
>>Should I edit all the HTML files to make them refer to the new style sheet? 
> 
> I'm afraid that would require approval from the corresponding authors of the
> library.

Good point.

>>Or back out the style sheet for this release?
> 
> I'd consider backing out on the fonts, and leaving everything else as is.
> 

That doesn't appeal to me, but I'd be interested to hear other opinions. 
There was broad consensus on boost-docs that sans-serif was ultimately 
what we wanted for boostbook documentation. I'm inclined to stick with 
it, live with the inconsistency for this release, and encourage people 
to port their docs to boostbook for the next one.

BTW, how come the "Nightly CVS" documentation (linked to from 
boost.org/) doesn't have the non-boostbook docs? And in general, it 
doesn't look much like the documentation in the tarball? Seems that 
whatever process we're using to generate the docs for the release should 
be the same as what we use to generate the "Nightly CVS" documentation, 
so that any problems can be spotted early.

-- 
Eric Niebler
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com