Re: [BBv2 docs editorial] Installation

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-22 16:13:45

Andrey Melnikov <melnikov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> 
>> 
>>>On Thursday 22 September 2005 17:45, David Abrahams wrote:
>>>
>>>>Andrey Melnikov <melnikov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>If the general idea is good, what about this:
>>>>>
>>>>>-------
>>>>>
>>>>>If your platform isn't in the list, or if you
>>>>>downloaded the latest Boost beta sources from CVS instead of an
>>>>
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>> I prefer "are using a copy of the Boost sources that is still under
>>>> active development," since this does not only apply to "beta" and it
>>>> does not only apply to "the latest" and because a development state
>>>> of the sources may have been acquired other than through CVS,
>>>> e.g. from some administrator that did the CVS and then produced a
>>>> tarball, and because we're going to switch off of CVS soon anyway.
>>>
>>>What about "or if you're using in-development version", then?
>> 
>> 
>> You need to indicate a development version of _what_.
>> 
>> "or if you are using a development version of the Boost Sources"
>> 
>> would be fine.
>> 
> Can/should I post/submit a docbook patch then?

Sure. But don't you have CVS write access? You could just make the
fix.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com