Boost logo

Boost-Build :

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] New doc format.
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-16 17:01:57

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Steven Watanabe via Boost-build <
boost-build_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 01/14/2018 07:21 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Steven Watanabe via Boost-build <
> > boost-build_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 01/14/2018 03:35 PM, Rene Rivera via Boost-build wrote:
> >>>
> >>> You can peruse the result here <>.
> >>>
> - Where is the source? I've about reached the limit of
> what I have to say about the generated html.

It's in the "feature/new-doc-format" branch <>.

> - Quite a lot of links are dead. (It seems like only links to
> a section are active.)

Hmm.. I'll have to figure out how to find and revive missing links.

> - The translation is somewhat out-dated vs. develop.

I made some catch up changes yesterday. And I have one more to do in that
regard (the relevant feature doc addition).

> - There's no syntax highlighting for Jam.

Was that syntax highlighting manual before? We could certainly work on
adding support for syntax coloring for that component. But that would be
separate work as it's an off-the-shelf syntax coloring module it uses
(which you can configure to use different ones).

> >> - Navigation is really annoying because there is only a single
> >> global TOC which is restricted to a depth of two levels.
> >>
> >
> > Switched it the side-bar TOC and made it three levels. Makes it a bit
> > better I think. What do you think?
> >
> Yeah, that's better, though I have to say that
> the section numbers in the TOC for "History" just
> look weird, since you have to look closely to see
> where the section id ends and the version # starts.

Yea, they do.. Perhaps just renaming those heading to "Version X.Y.X" would

> Actually.. I don't remember.. I may have done that :-) It's been a while
> > since I did the initial translation to remember accurately. But I suspect
> > the reason I probably did not was to keep the same set of files (i.e.
> > one-to-one xml-to-adoc).
> >
> Depending on how much fixing up you had to do, it might
> be easier to just split the final output manually.

I didn't have to do much fixing. Mostly some regex search-replace for some
things. Most of the time was reading the doc carefully to ensure everything
was there. Although it took a long calendar time.. In reality it only took
less than a week of actual work as I had lots of other things in between,
including holidays and vacation :-)

-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams -

Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at