Subject: Re: [boost] Call for Review: Boost.Test documentation rewrite
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-11 09:11:56
On Jan 10, 2014, at 10:17 PM, Gennadiy Rozental <rogeeff_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Richard <legalize+jeeves <at> mail.xmission.com> writes:
>>> 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.
That's reasonable, provided there's no backlash on the new interface. (You know people will come out of the woodwork, when it's released, that could have spoken earlier.)
>> Again, I'm not sure why you didn't reply to my call for reviewers that
>> I posted last May.
> Again, becasue this was not I want us to spend time on.
There were clearly communications failures. Gennadiy, ignoring an e-mail because you think the sender is wrong-headed wasn't the best idea. A short reply reminding Richard that he's documenting what was about to be deprecated, would have been helpful. Furthermore, it's clear that Richard didn't understand what you were doing to the library and that its release was imminent, but blocked on the creation of documentation.
>> You're saying I ignored you, but when I email you or post to the mailing list, you don't reply.
> Show me a single post where you agree to work me on new documentation. All your post are about this is how my old docs should have looked liked.
> Whether or not I agree with this criticism is irrelevant and I do not have time to spend on useless bikering. I want us to do something productive instead.
>> I just don't find that you're being helpful while at the same time blaming me for not doing what you want.
> Yes. I was not going to be helpful to do something which does not have much value in my opinion. You docs probably written better, with better english
> and some external prospective allowing you to better single out important parts. Yet you bound to be limited by expirience you have personally and my goal is to serve all users of the library equally, both new and old. I know the design of the library, it's pablic interfaces and how I would like it to grow. And in this unique moment I also know which parts of the library I want to deprecate and thus stop advertise them through documentation.
It sounds to me as if you both want useful documentation for Boost.Test, and have been willing to cooperate. Gennadiy has expressed ongoing interest in collaborating on documentation for the new APIs. Richard, if you're still interested in helping, can you agree to help on the new version? If not, Gennadiy's idea to link to your docs for the old, soon to be deprecated, interface seems appropriate.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk