From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-18 10:49:56
Daniel James wrote:
> 2008/8/18 Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]>:
>> Another option (that I think Dave Abrahams has been doing) is to use
>> RST  to make writing/reading the source documentation easier than
>> having to rely on Boostbook+XSLT (which I personally think is a
>> brittle tool-chain).
> We haven't a single problem with boostbook or xslt. It's actually
> quite stable. The problems have been with boost build, quickbook
> (possibly due to Spirit), doxygen and latex. Basically everything but
> boostbook. Most of the problems seem to involve poor support for
And even on Windows the doc build process has been mostly trouble-free.
The only reason the doc build was such an upset 1.36.0 was that a
breakage was detected very late in the release process. So I really
don't think we should be talking about major changes. It should be
sufficient (1) quickly fixing the current bug (which the docs folks are
already working on), and (2) tweaking the process to make sure doc build
failures are detected much earlier in a release cycle.
The "big bang" major change we need is to get CMake based building,
testing, and reporting working well enough to use in production work.
IIUC, that project is making lots of progress with building and testing,
but hasn't really gotten into reporting yet. So rather than spend a lot
of energy in a long discussion here, it would be better IMO if the Boost
brainpower dusted off their SQL skills, and started working on report
generation and query for the CMake based testing system. Meanwhile those
of us working on release management will keep churning out quarterly
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk