Re: [jamboost] Re: [boost] Release plans [was: Maintenance release?]

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-05 21:43:00

On 2002-05-05 at 05:52 PM, david.abrahams_at_[hidden] (David Abrahams) wrote:

>In light of the proposed release schedule below, I think we should
>consider what needs to be done to get Boost.Build (v1) in shape. I
>realize we have placed a moratorium on v1 development, but I think it
>would be appropriate to make an exception for some ease-of-use fixes.
>
>My list of what's important:
>
>1. Change all configuration variables representing paths to names
>which end in "_PATH". This eliminates "spaces in pathnames" problems
>since Jam won't split these except at path separators (':' on *nix,
>';' on windows).
>
>2. Set these variables as neccessary from variables with the old names
>for backwards-compatibility
>
>3. Add comments about how to configure the toolset (see gcc-tools.jam).
>
>4. When configuration is detectably wrong, print a helpful message
>about how to configure the toolset (see msvc-stlport-tools.jam). This
>should be extended to take advantage of the GLOB rule if it is
>defined, though we have to be careful to release precompiled jams
>which support new features before we do anything which requires
>them. The GLOB rule can be used to look for the compiler in the PATH,
>for example.
>
>5. Possible low-cost replacement for 3&4: implement a
> --help-<toolset-name> option for each toolset which dumps
> configuration instructions.
>
>Thoughts?

To put it bluntly... I think #1, #2, & #4 are a bad idea... Currently V1 is
working and hasn't shown major problems for weeks. So I think it would be
dangerous to start changing things that will definately introduce bugs. And
this for a slight benefit of making it easier to use/setup which we agreed
is something we would postpone until V2.

As for #3 & #5... Like I've mentioned before it's documentation that will
really helps the users at this point. And I aggree that it's needed to
alleviate the number of questions that always come up. Documenting the
individual toolsets is certainly good idea. But adding more jam code to put
in a help system (even a minimal one) is more trouble than it's worth. I'd
rather we put that same documentation into some, more user friendly, HTML
file(s).

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
-- 102708583_at_icq - Grafik666_at_AIM - Grafik_at_[hidden]