Why did the formatting for Boost.Asio documentation change from 1.61 to 1.63? Compare: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_61_0/doc/html/boost_asio.html http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_63_0/doc/html/boost_asio.html This looks like it was unintended, and its screwing up search engines (try searching for "Boost Asio 1.63.0 Reference" -- Follow me on Github: https://github.com/vinniefalco
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco@gmail.com> wrote:
Why did the formatting for Boost.Asio documentation change from 1.61 to 1.63?
More information: Here's the top level documentation page for Boost.Asio 1.62.0: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_62_0/doc/html/boost_asio.html Now here's the same top level page for 1.63.0: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_63_0/doc/html/boost_asio.html Everything has been flattened into one page, which is not the intent of the parameters in the Jamfile for building the docs. Also note that in the docs for 1.62.0, the "Quick Reference" (a manually maintained piece of Boost.Book xml) is present: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_62_0/doc/html/boost_asio/reference.html But in 1.63.0 the Quick Reference is absent: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_63_0/doc/html/boost_asio/reference.html I can't find the quick reference anywhere. I'm not sure what the problem is but something changed. This is everything that was modified in doc/ https://github.com/boostorg/asio/commits/develop/doc Nothing jumps out at me. But I'm no expert in building the Boost docs.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco@gmail.com> wrote:
Why did the formatting for Boost.Asio documentation change from 1.61 to 1.63?
Compare: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_61_0/doc/html/boost_asio.html http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_63_0/doc/html/boost_asio.html
This looks like it was unintended, and its screwing up search engines (try searching for "Boost Asio 1.63.0 Reference"
Sorry I missed this email (was sick for few days and missed it somehow).. The issue is that the docs for Asio changed from being standalone to integrated unintentionally. Or rather when I made this change < https://github.com/boostorg/asio/commit/6ef8c1566ce89f2463f32859a8f459b1869e...
.
What you should do is to: a) define the boostdoc alias as empty. b) define the boostrelease alias to build the asio standalone docs. -- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco@gmail.com> wrote:
Why did the formatting for Boost.Asio documentation change from 1.61 to ... What you should do is to:
a) define the boostdoc alias as empty. b) define the boostrelease alias to build the asio standalone docs.
Wait uhh...what do you mean? Are you saying that I should make that change locally? I was hoping we could fix the official documentation for everyone. I don't build the asio docs for myself, I use the one at boost.org
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco@gmail.com> wrote:
Why did the formatting for Boost.Asio documentation change from 1.61 to ... What you should do is to:
a) define the boostdoc alias as empty. b) define the boostrelease alias to build the asio standalone docs.
Wait uhh...what do you mean? Are you saying that I should make that change locally? I was hoping we could fix the official documentation for everyone. I don't build the asio docs for myself, I use the one at boost.org
Sorry misunderstood your question slightly.. The ASIO author has to decide is the documentation they want for the release is to be the integrated one (as it is now in 1.63) or the standalone one (as it was in 1.61). When I made the doc building changes for CI I "guessed" as to the intent of the authors. In the case of ASOI I guess that they wanted the integrated docs as they have existing explicit build targets for them. Which meant that somehow the layout changed significantly in this case. Don't really know why though :-( As the docs are built just like all the other integrated library docs. -- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:
...I "guessed" as to the intent of the authors. In the case of ASOI I guess that they wanted the integrated docs as they have existing explicit build targets for them. Which meant that somehow the layout changed significantly in this case.
It is because the Asio docs don't want any automatically generated table of contents. If you can adjust the TOC depth or other relevant settings, so that Asio's docs don't have any automatically generated table of contents, that will fix the formatting problems. I don't know how to do that though.
The "This is an the documentation for an old version of boost." link is broken too, it links to the index. The typo isn't mine either.. ;) http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_61_0/doc/html/boost_asio/reference/read_unti... On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:
...I "guessed" as to the intent of the authors. In the case of ASOI I guess that they wanted the integrated docs as they have existing explicit build targets for them. Which meant that somehow the layout changed significantly in this case.
It is because the Asio docs don't want any automatically generated table of contents. If you can adjust the TOC depth or other relevant settings, so that Asio's docs don't have any automatically generated table of contents, that will fix the formatting problems. I don't know how to do that though.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/ mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Olaf
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:
The issue is that the docs for Asio changed from being standalone to integrated unintentionally.
Is there a link where I can see an HTML preview of the docs to verify the fix for 1.64.0? Thanks
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:
The issue is that the docs for Asio changed from being standalone to integrated unintentionally.
Is there a link where I can see an HTML preview of the docs to verify the fix for 1.64.0?
Note, I haven't changed it back to being standalone yet (haven't had the time). But you can see doc build snapshots here: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/develop/libs/asio/ http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/master/libs/asio/ For the develop and master branch respectively. -- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
participants (4)
-
Daniel James -
Olaf van der Spek -
Rene Rivera -
Vinnie Falco