From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-25 12:42:53
Matias Capeletto wrote:
> On 6/25/07, Gennadiy Rozental <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Boost shouldn't require what tools are used to generate BoostBook documents.
> I really hope that you think that our current direction is right now.
> Please try not to sparse FUD, people can get confused by it.
But the argument has nothing to do with the quality of the tool you are
working on !
Let me put this into a broader context:
The concern I have about even the fact that we have this discussion is
basically the same I have about people spending weeks arguing about the
best version control tool for boost, or build system. (And, as far as the
build system is concerned, I was worried about David pushing people to
use boost.build even for their own projects. It seems he is quite a bit
less aggressive about that, these days, luckily. ;-) )
It sounds like an imbalance between academic concerns (getting things Right),
as opposed to pragmatism (focus on the important stuff, and not getting stuck
in things outside what should be boost's scope).
At least there seems to be a consensus about what boost's scope / focus should be.
That's a good starting point. :-)
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk