Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Reminder: Boost Master branch will close for the 1.65.0 release on Wednesday
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-01 21:26:26

On 01.08.2017 17:09, Raffi Enficiaud via Boost wrote:
> Le 01.08.17 à 22:18, Stefan Seefeld via Boost a écrit :
>> On 01.08.2017 15:21, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
>>> On 08/01/17 22:14, Daniel James via Boost wrote:
>>>> On 1 August 2017 at 19:27, Stefan Seefeld via Boost
>>>> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>> On 01.08.2017 05:12, Daniel James via Boost wrote:
>>>>>> I can see other problems with a more distributed approach. We'd lose
>>>>>> the ability to edit release notes, which we do on occasion, and pull
>>>>>> requests also make it easier to track changes as someone has to
>>>>>> approve them.
>>>>> Why would anyone want to edit or even just approve release notes I
>>>>> wrote
>>>>> about a project I maintain ?
>>>> Fix links, typos, markup etc. A lot of that is done by Akira
>>>> Takahashi.
>>> Multiple times we also had to add to release notes after the release
>>> has been shipped. For example, add notes about critical problems and
>>> links to patches.
>> Yes, all of which can be done per project, if Boost would allow release
>> notes to be stored in the project-specific repositories, and rendered
>> from project-specific documentation, rather than all from a single
>> monolithic place.
> Is this really the case, and is Boost enforcing this? I believe not:
> * feel free to not publish release notes that would be visible on
> * feel free to publish whatever documentation and release notes to
> whatever server of your own

Fair enough. All that is missing for Boost's central documentation
(release notes:,
library listing:, bug reporting:, etc.) is to point to
individual projects, such that all that info gets pulled from where it
should be.

> Please allow me to give you an excerpt from a post of yours, not so
> long ago (20.05.16, 17:45):
> """
> It is absurd how much ink is wasted on completely meaningless questions
> such as where build system artifacts should be placed, as those have
> absolutely no impact on end-users.
> """

Touché. However, this isn't so much about technical details than it is
about the organizational structure of the whole thing.

> I would be glad if we can stay in-topic.
> Cheers,
> Raffi

> PS: I am also *very* glad that the release process is moving on,
> despite the recent chaos on the list and organization. I also want to
> add that the "people" (which certainly can be counted on my single
> hand) that are structuring Boost with their tools, servers,
> infrastructure in general are doing a wonderful job.

I'm *very* grateful for all the help and assistance from others to keep
Boost running, so please do not read my criticism (or in fact feature
requests) as criticism of anyone's hard work.


      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at