Over at boost.org there's a page for Boost.Build, at: http://www.boost.org/tools/build/v2/index.html the content of which is exactly what was in the last Boost release. There's another page for Boost.Build, namely http://boost.org/boost-build2, content of which is regenerated nightly, using SVN state. The first page, generally, is outdated and wrong. For example, now it points a Milestone 11 downloads while current version of Boost.Build is M12, talks about CVS (and links to a page that does not say how to get anything from either CVS or SVN), points to development roadmap that is totally inaccurate, and so on. Generally, both the download and documentation links at http://boost.org/boost-build2 will yield better results to a user. Are there any objections to making the up-to-date docs page the one most easily found, and making docs corresponding to the last release only found via some "doc archive", or not accessible at all? (Rene's working on new website, so how this is implemented technically is separate question, I'm asking only about user-visible effect). - Volodya
on Sat Oct 27 2007, Vladimir Prus <ghost-AT-cs.msu.su> wrote:
Over at boost.org there's a page for Boost.Build, at:
http://www.boost.org/tools/build/v2/index.html
the content of which is exactly what was in the last Boost release. There's another page for Boost.Build, namely http://boost.org/boost-build2, content of which is regenerated nightly, using SVN state.
The first page, generally, is outdated and wrong. For example, now it points a Milestone 11 downloads while current version of Boost.Build is M12, talks about CVS (and links to a page that does not say how to get anything from either CVS or SVN), points to development roadmap that is totally inaccurate, and so on. Generally, both the download and documentation links at http://boost.org/boost-build2 will yield better results to a user.
Are there any objections to making the up-to-date docs page the one most easily found, and making docs corresponding to the last release only found via some "doc archive", or not accessible at all?
Seems like a good idea for now. Hopefully at some point in the future, the docs will catch up with the releases and we will probably want to revisit that decision. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
on Sat Oct 27 2007, Vladimir Prus <ghost-AT-cs.msu.su> wrote:
Over at boost.org there's a page for Boost.Build, at:
http://www.boost.org/tools/build/v2/index.html
the content of which is exactly what was in the last Boost release. There's another page for Boost.Build, namely http://boost.org/boost-build2, content of which is regenerated nightly, using SVN state.
The first page, generally, is outdated and wrong. For example, now it points a Milestone 11 downloads while current version of Boost.Build is M12, talks about CVS (and links to a page that does not say how to get anything from either CVS or SVN), points to development roadmap that is totally inaccurate, and so on. Generally, both the download and documentation links at http://boost.org/boost-build2 will yield better results to a user.
Are there any objections to making the up-to-date docs page the one most easily found, and making docs corresponding to the last release only found via some "doc archive", or not accessible at all?
Seems like a good idea for now. Hopefully at some point in the future, the docs will catch up with the releases and we will probably want to revisit that decision.
Ok, so given that new website is still in the making, how about me adding apache redirect from http://www.boost.org/tools/build/v2/index.html to boost.org/boost-build2 ? - Volodya
Vladimir Prus wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
on Sat Oct 27 2007, Vladimir Prus <ghost-AT-cs.msu.su> wrote:
Over at boost.org there's a page for Boost.Build, at:
http://www.boost.org/tools/build/v2/index.html
the content of which is exactly what was in the last Boost release. There's another page for Boost.Build, namely http://boost.org/boost-build2, content of which is regenerated nightly, using SVN state.
The first page, generally, is outdated and wrong. For example, now it points a Milestone 11 downloads while current version of Boost.Build is M12, talks about CVS (and links to a page that does not say how to get anything from either CVS or SVN), points to development roadmap that is totally inaccurate, and so on. Generally, both the download and documentation links at http://boost.org/boost-build2 will yield better results to a user.
Are there any objections to making the up-to-date docs page the one most easily found, and making docs corresponding to the last release only found via some "doc archive", or not accessible at all?
Seems like a good idea for now. Hopefully at some point in the future, the docs will catch up with the releases and we will probably want to revisit that decision.
Ok, so given that new website is still in the making, how about me adding apache redirect from http://www.boost.org/tools/build/v2/index.html to boost.org/boost-build2 ?
In fact, I've considered all other technical options, and apache redirect seems just about right. I've added the following: Redirect /tools/build/v2 http://boost.org/boost-build2 Redirect /tools/build http://boost.org/boost-build2 and it appears to have the desired effect. - Volodya
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Over at boost.org there's a page for Boost.Build, at:
http://www.boost.org/tools/build/v2/index.html
the content of which is exactly what was in the last Boost release. There's another page for Boost.Build, namely http://boost.org/boost-build2, content of which is regenerated nightly, using SVN state.
The first page, generally, is outdated and wrong. For example, now it points a Milestone 11 downloads while current version of Boost.Build is M12, talks about CVS (and links to a page that does not say how to get anything from either CVS or SVN), points to development roadmap that is totally inaccurate, and so on. Generally, both the download and documentation links at http://boost.org/boost-build2 will yield better results to a user.
Are there any objections to making the up-to-date docs page the one most easily found, and making docs corresponding to the last release only found via some "doc archive", or not accessible at all?
No objection from me. I've found reaching the out-of-date docs page an irritation. --Beman
participants (3)
-
Beman Dawes -
David Abrahams -
Vladimir Prus