Re: [boost] 1.34 release: What about the inspection failures?

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-20 06:20:08

Andreas Huber wrote:
> Hi there
>
> After the call for volunteers to clear the regression failures (can't
> help with those, currently no access to the relevant platforms), I
> think it's also time to get busy with the remaining inspection
> failures: - The *X* report doesn't look too bad, all of the few
> remaining problems seem to be in libraries that are currently
> actively maintained. - The *LC* report however does not look good at
> all. There are a large number of problems and some of them are in
> public areas (e.g. people) or not actively maintained libs (e.g.
> pool).
>
> What should we do about the *LC* problems? Is it worth bothering with
> those?

Um, don't know, in theory yes, but there are a lot truly trivial issues
showing up, for example there are dozens of html redirect files, that have
no content except a http-refresh redirection, we could just mark these so
they don't show up in the report I guess?

I'm more concerned about all the broken links reported in the X report, some
of our documentation looks to be in a very poor state :-(

If someone would like to look at this, and/or nag the authors concerned that
would be great!

John.