From: Matias Capeletto (matias.capeletto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-25 12:54:28
On 6/25/07, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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).
IMHO opinion the current project to boost docs is well balanced. We
are trying to get things right because it is Boost tradition to pursue
excellence in all aspects. The important thing to note is that this
discussion is healthy an do not slow down the project. Two weeks ago
there was no such project, and now there are at least six volunteers
working in different parts of it.
> At least there seems to be a consensus about what boost's scope / focus should be.
> That's a good starting point. :-)
Having a common look & feel for docs and good tools for navigate them
should be part of boost scope.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk