From: Douglas Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-25 16:30:10
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> "Matias Capeletto" <matias.capeletto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Boost should require BoostBook as a documentation format. This is the
> documentation should be kept in source control and delivered with release
> Boost shouldn't require what tools are used to generate BoostBook
> Whether it's QuickBook, XML editor, any other facility is irrelevant and
> libraries authors are free to use any of them (and keep some intermediate
> files under source control if necessary)
>> This is one of the objectives of the "Improving Boost Docs" project.
> Hmm. I never got this fealing. At least I do not see .dokbook files in
> libraries maintaining it's docs as quickbook.
The DocBook or BoostBook XML will be generated via Quickbook when
needed. Or do you want the DocBook/BoostBook XML to always be in the
source tree, even if it can be regenerated?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk