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 12:24:12

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Edward Diener
> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 4:40 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Call for Review: Boost.Test documentation rewrite
> 
> 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. 

A starting-point, but it's quite well hidden, lightly documented, and may be a little featherweight
for some?

Paul

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