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

Subject: Re: [boost] Call for Review: Boost.Test documentation rewrite
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-12 11:40:27

On 1/12/2014 10:25 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>> -----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?

There is the lightweight_test.hpp in the boost/details directory. I have 
used this for my own testing needs.