Jonathan Franklin wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Phil Endecott <spam_from_boost_dev@chezphil.org> wrote:
To me it seems like a bad idea to accept libraries that are submitted with unfinished documentation, ...
Contingency! The review should be contingent on an "adequate" level of documentation.
Thanks. Jeez! What a tough crowd! I have to say that I laughed out loud when I read that a precedent of accepting things into boost with inadequate documentation should not be set! Too late! Some existing boost libraries took quite awhile to come up to the level of documentation we enjoy today. There are still noticeable differences from library to library in the wonderfulness that is boost documentation. Almost everyday on the user's group someone is posting about some library saying, "Help! I've read all the documentation on this library and I can't get a clue in the forest of clues on two for 1 free clue day!" (I may be paraphrasing a bit;) Now--all of a sudden--documentation has to be complete and professional to be considered for inclusion in boost. Hope there's a grandfather clause! Patrick