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

Subject: Re: [boost] Call for Review: Boost.Test documentation rewrite
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-12 10:25:15

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Gennadiy Rozental
> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 3:17 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Call for Review: Boost.Test documentation rewrite

> > >I am all for working with Richard on new docs.

You do not convince me, both from my experience trying to work on documentation improvement with
you, and the list interchanges with Richard and others.

His documentation is not perfect, but it is far, far better IMO, and it's what I use for everyday
work, and I'm sure I am not the only one doing this.  So I'd like to see Richard's documentation of
the current release Boost.Test adopted now.

Most important, his documentation is *maintainable* by anyone with a plain text editor and Boost
tools.  I see this as a key *requirement*.

> 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 worthwhile.

Boost.Test is a key library - because nearly all other libraries have come to depend on it.

Testing is central to Boost's quality. 

So I believe it is unwise for its maintenance to be in the hands of a single maintainer.  Boost.Test
should be 'community maintained' by consensus.

Changes to Boost.Test risk causing much trouble for many libraries, so change needs to be managed
better than in the past.

So the current Boost.Test should be frozen so that no library author is suddenly forced to deal with
any change to Boost.Test.

Any proposed improved version, called Boost.Test2 perhaps, should be subject to a FULL review of
code, test, examples, and its documentation.  

And it should have a small team of maintainers. 

Library authors will be free to switch to Boost.Test2 (Boost.Test3...) when they find it useful and
convenient.

Paul

PS  Boost.Test feels much more complicated than most users need.  So we might have a Boost.MiniTest
too?

---
Paul A. Bristow,
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]  07714330204
pbristow_at_[hidden]