"Doug Gregor" <doug.gregor@gmail.com> wrote in message news:24b520d20512010704w6d06cb08m3991e843077ebf58@mail.gmail.com...
Hello all,
Here is today's inspection report on the RC_1_33_0 branch. Would everyone please take a look at these and fix whatever needs to be fixed? The report is also available at http://www.boost.org/inspect.html
Cheers, Doug
Totals
11276 files scanned 856 directories scanned 63 problems reported
problem counts: 0 files with invalid line endings 0 bookmarks with invalid characters 0 invalid urls 9 broken links 26 unlinked files 21 file names too long 0 files with tabs 7 violations of the Boost min/max guidelines
Summary *Library* *Problems* ... date_time<http://www.boost.org/inspect.html#date_time> ...
date_time
boost/date_time/date_parsing.hpp: violation of Boost min/max guidelines on line 80, violation of Boost min/max guidelines on line 81 boost/date_time/period.hpp: violation of Boost min/max guidelines on line 325, violation of Boost min/max guidelines on line 326
These are not min/max violations. They are simply occurances of the word "min" or "max" within comments.
libs/date_time/xmldoc/date_time_docs_howto.html: unlinked file
This particular file isn't supposed to be linked.
doc
doc/html/date_time/doxy.html: broken link: ../../../boost/date_time/local_time/local_time_serialize.hpp
I don't know about this one. I don't see it in cvs: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/boost/boost/doc/html/date_time/ Bart