Subject: Re: [boost] [test] Looking for co-developer/maintainer
From: Alexander Lamaison (awl03_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-24 05:38:43
Bjørn Roald <bjorn_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On 01/22/2014 10:30 PM, Alexander Lamaison wrote:
>> Once you cut it down to size, you would result in what Richard has
>> written, albeit, less clearly worded.
> Well, I think this statement is very heavy biased on the view that no
> other aspect of Boost.Test than those that has concerned Richard are
> the worth documenting. If that where a global and final truth, then
> it would be a valid assertion, but it is not.
I'm genuinely curious what aspects of Boost.Test, that Richard ommitted
to document, you use. Maybe I'm far off the mark, but I doubt many
people use the extra stuff that is basically an implementation detail.
One the other hand, Richards version is more complete documentation than
original for the every-day aspects, such as documenting all the
undocumented macros that people can use in their test cases.
> As it stands, without some adjustments in the attitudes of the major
> stakeholders here with regards to each other's work, I see little hope
> of this happening. That is a sad thing as I think their combined
> effort and respect could have led to much more than two competing
> efforts is likely to ever do.
Maybe so. But anger is keeping the two groups apart.
One camp is angry that they tried to involve the maintainer, got no
response, worked hard to solve it themselves, then the maintainer
reestablishes contact just to object once the work is done. The
maintainer's camp is angry that the others have gone away and decided
his documentation, which took years to write, is bad and needs replacing
without his consent.
It's hard to see how to resolve that in a way that satisfies both sides.
-- Swish - Easy SFTP for Windows Explorer (http://www.swish-sftp.org)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk