-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Glen Fernandes Sent: 07 January 2016 18:30 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] ATTENTION: Library requirements..
Rene wrote:
I'm making my Predef library be that "golden" example. By commenting the source to illustrate the requirements. But since my lib doesn't have source it may not be the best.
It's interesting that Boost.Predef has both QBK sources and generated HTML output in the repository. I was considering doing this for Boost.Align but did not want repository history affected by commits around generation of documentation.
Now that we're on git, and each library's repository already has two branches (master,d develop), maybe it would be a good idea to institute (as policy) or support (in our infrastructure) a third branch for documentation.
Sounds a good idea to me, but let's see what John Maddock thinks too.
1. It serves the users who want to easily view documentation for a given library's repository. (They can clone that documentation branch).
If there are (and there should be) links to the include and examples folders, then these updated version are needed too.
2. It doesn't require us to put generated documentation output in our main development branches.
For cooperative working on Boost.Math, I found this very tiresome indeed. it made it impossible to see the wood for the trees.
3. It might even allow you support things like: "If <library> has 'docs' branch, don't require it to have a root level index.html."
It would allow anyone who wants 'developing' documentation updates to get them without having to build the toolchain to get an updated version - something that I've been kludging round by putting the built docs (and the other updated folders) on my personal Dropbox. I'd prefer to stop doing that. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830