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

Subject: Re: [boost] [test] Looking for co-developer/maintainer
From: Richard (legalize+jeeves_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-19 18:55:02

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Kim Barrett <kab.conundrums_at_[hidden]> asserted that the existing
detail in the documentation was useful and necessary and that somehow
I had done the library a disservice by removing detail.

Yet, when asked:

boost_at_[hidden] spake the secret code
<le30md$p9o$7_at_[hidden]> thusly:

>[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
>boost_at_[hidden] spake the secret code
><6F8C95D8-715C-4900-96A1-4EAF1B4B8EC8_at_[hidden]> thusly:
>
>>[...]  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.
>
>Have you looked at my version of the documentation?
><http://user.xmission.com/~legalize/tmp/boost.test/libs/test/doc/html/index.html>
>
>What is missing from there that you feel needs to be documented?

I receive no response.

I can therefore only conclude that the new documentation isn't missing
anything that's necessary as I asked this question in February, almost
three months ago.
-- 
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
     The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
         The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org>
  Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>