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: 2014-01-10 11:36:10

Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:

> 
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Gennadiy Rozental <rogeeff <at> gmail.com> 
wrote:
> 
> > Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:
> >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Richard
> > > <legalize+jeeves <at> mail.xmission.com>wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd rather document the current 1.55 release and move forward.  It's
> > > > already taken over 6 months to get to this point, I see no point in
> > > > delaying any further.
> > > >
> > >
> > > With all reviews in favor and none against,  it seems clear you should
> > move
> > > forward with this.
> >
> > I hoped I still have some say in this. I outlined my concerns in another
> > post. I would prefer not to make any movement until we get to some
> > consensus
> > on these.
> >
> 
>  Gennadiy,
> 
> 1) The library hasn't had much attention for several years, so I'm
> personally against further delay. While normally we wouldn't think of 
going
> forward with a major docs rewrite against the wishes of the library
> maintainer, you just haven't been responsive to documentation complaints
> for what seems like eons of time.

Boost.Test trunk has better improved documentation.
 
> 2) One of the objectives of modularizing boost was so that we could
> encourage wider participation, yet avoid giving boost-wide write
> authorization to new contributors. It seems to me the work Richard is 
doing
> is a very useful example of that.

I am all for working with Richard on new docs. I am just not sure this 
particular version worth time people will need to spent to get used to it. 
What Boost.Test really need is to document new release. And this is what we 
should be targeting. New features and new docs look and feel will make it 
all worth while.

Gennadiy