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 15:09:47

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

> 
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
> 
> boost <at> lists.boost.org spake the secret code
> <1389378320565-4657604.post <at> n4.nabble.com> thusly:
> 
> >He did discuss the new features with the mailing list, and even presented 
> >it for a min-review:
> >
> >http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-Test-updates-in-trunk-need-for-
mini-review-td4637343.html
> 
> 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.

Regards,
Gennadiy