Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Call for Review: Boost.Test documentation rewrite
From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-10 15:09:47

Richard <legalize+jeeves <at>> writes:

> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
> boost <at> spake the secret code
> < <at>> thusly:
> >He did discuss the new features with the mailing list, and even presented
> >it for a min-review:
> >
> >
> Thanks for that (I am puzzled why Gennadiy didn't provide this to me;
> oh well).
> That was 15 months ago and I wasn't subscribed to the developer list
> at that time.

Frankly, I did not realize you are so new to the list.
> Still, the point remains that the features in 1.55 release branch are
> what everyone is using today and regardless of whatever new features
> may be introduced, those existing features *must* be documented and
> explained the new documentation I've written does a much better job of
> making that information easy for people to find.

Those existing features are documented one way or another. We do not want
new documentation to include 3 different ways of doing the same thing. New
documentation should cover new recommended way of using the library.

As for the older interfaces, we can have one page which list them and refer
to the previos release for description. If you insist we can probably refer
to your version, but it should be very clear that this is not the way one is
expected to use the library. New user of Boost.Test should not be using
these anymore.

I am still open to work with you on this. Given your familiarity with the
library we should be able to present a version of Boost.Test with the docs
and ask for mini-review of this new version soon enough.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at