Subject: Re: [boost] Further modularization
From: stefan (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-11-09 18:52:27
On 2018-11-09 11:56 a.m., Mateusz Loskot via Boost wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 17:47, stefan via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Let's not get side-tracked into another tools & languages discussion.
>> I think the high-order bit of the proposal is to further modularize the
>> process by letting individual projects manage *their* release notes,
>> then somehow syndicate them.
> Despite I support your views on pushing the modularisation further,
> I am as optimistic about pushing it wild
> - even American Wrestling has rules :)
> Eventually, things will have to integrate somehow, there will have to
> be common conventions, formats, tools to make all the wild libs
> running free behave at common table.
The approach I would favour doesn't require different projects to agree
on tools or formats. It would only require projects to publish release
notes, and then provide an URL for it, so the toplevel (boost) website
could have a table containing links.
In fact, that's an idea I already brought up in the past about
modularizing documentation: if all projects adopt the practice of
publishing their docs (including release notes) on
boostorg.github.com/<project> (e.g. http://boostorg.github.io/gil/ :-),
all the boost website builder has to do is set up a table with
project-specific references (to docs, release notes, issue trackers,
etc.). In that picture no-one cares how you produce those for your
project (and what issue tracker you use), as long as those references
are published correctly.
Then people can love & hate yaml et al. as much they want, this would
never again have to start a boost-wide discussion. Wouldn't that be nice
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk