Re: [boost] Call for Review: Boost.Test documentation rewrite

Subject: Re: [boost] Call for Review: Boost.Test documentation rewrite
From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-09 03:23:00

Richard <legalize+jeeves <at> mail.xmission.com> writes:

Hi Richard,

Unfortunately I am very busy with moving to a new position to review this 
properly, but I feel I need to make few comments. We already kinda went 
through this couple times, so these should not be a surprise.

I generally do not mind your style or tools used even though both are not my 
favorite. Here are the things that I find I am NOT ok with:

1. First and foremost: it is pretty much completely irrelevant
Trunk version of boost.test will require us to rewrite 90% of what you did. 
I keep asking you to collaborate on something which we can actually release. 
I am not sure why you keep ignoring me.

2. This is not a Boost.Test documentation - this is is boost unit test 
framework documentation

You are missing the whole original point of layering in boost.test design. 
You are missing description of all the other independent layers. In general 
I think you are missing quite a few other things as well.

3. You eliminated the examples. I liked original examples much better with 
their output etc.

4. You made quite a lot of description more terse

Take runtime parameters for example. Where I had few pages you left only few 
paragraphs. I find new description very lacking.

5. I understand you have your own favorite mocking library, but it is not 
part of Boost.Test (not yet at least). In fact Boost.Test does have mocking 
components, which just never been properly documented. The library you 
promote in fact is an example of mocking approach, which I am strongly 
against. That said I do not mind pages with tutorial on using any kind of 
mocking library, but I would probably start with gmock instead.

6. I think quickbook navigation is seriously lacking. If you do not like my 
take, I would like to see something along the lines of what preprocessor 
library is using.

These are just from top of my head without properly reading the pages. I 
once again would like you to consider collaboration. I may not have enough 
time at the moment to finish this myself, but together (and probably with 
help of some other people) I am sure we can make it happen.

Regards,
Gennadiy