Re: [boost] [concept_check] Reference page concept links out-of-date

Subject: Re: [boost] [concept_check] Reference page concept links out-of-date
From: Josh Juran (jjuran_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-04-09 10:11:48

On Apr 8, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Cromwell Enage via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 6:07 AM, Spencer Collyer via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>> Not sure if this has been reported before, but any links on the
>> Reference page of the concept_check library that point to SGI.com now
>> take you to a page that says 'SGI.com Tech Archive Resources now retired'.

Unless you have HTTPS Everywhere installed and have previously visited http://www.sgi.com, in which case it continues to automatically redirect to https://www.sgi.com, which no longer exists.  Arguably, a connection error is a better result than a 200 page which only adds insult to injury.

> I've noticed this with links from other Boost libraries (e.g. Boost.uBlas)
> to the SGI's former webpage.  (Way to not go, Hewlett Packard.)  I see a
> few options to work around this:
> 
> 1. Point the links to the last versions archived by the Wayback Machine <
> web.archive.org>.  It's the most immediate fix, but Boost might lose the
> perception of being a cutting-edge set of libraries that doesn't point to
> outdated web pages.
> 
> 2. Point the links to corresponding documentation on the latest C++
> standard <en.cppreference.com>.  This would also require reworking the
> concept checking class templates and the concept archetypes, possibly
> breaking existing user code or other Boost libraries (e.g. BGL).
> 
> 3. Host our own versions of those pages.  It may take the longest, but we
> can avoid the drawback of option 1, write new concept checking classes
> instead for option 2, and have complete control over our documentation.

They're not mutually exclusive.  A link to the Wayback Machine is much better than a dead end -- how about starting with that to repair the ruined links, so the information is accessible to visitors while we devise a more permanent solution?

Josh