Re: [boost] [test] Looking for co-developer/maintainer

Subject: Re: [boost] [test] Looking for co-developer/maintainer
From: Kim Barrett (kab.conundrums_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-24 17:52:08

On Jan 24, 2014, at 11:16 AM, Gennadiy Rozental <rogeeff_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> Alexander Lamaison <awl03 <at> doc.ic.ac.uk> writes:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> These are not implementation details at all. The fact that you are not using 
> them does not make them useless. There are some people (admetedly less then 
> those who are suing UTF) who need these to be documented.

I'm a long-time user of Boost.Test (> 8 years).  I personally have
found the level of detail in its documentation very useful over those
years.  Sometimes one makes a usage mistake, especially when trying to
do something complicated that is beyond what is described in the
tutorial examples, and sometimes the errors one gets (either from the
compiler or at runtime) are less than helpful.  Despite that, I've
never had to resort to looking at the Boost.Test source code to
resolve such issues.  That's not something I can say for a lot of the
code I work with, including some other Boost libraries.  So when I
hear someone suggesting that there is too much detail in the
Boost.Test documentation, and that some of it should be thrown away, I
get very nervous.

While I will certainly agree that the existing release documentation
has some structural / organizational problems, that's an entirely
different problem.  [And one which no longer has much effect on me
personally, since I've invested the time needed to know my way
around in the current documentation.]