Re: [Cppqed-support] Old bzr branches, documentation and other outdated stuff

[Andras V. <and...@ui...>]

Dear Raimar,
Your worries are justified, but at the moment, since the Bazaar repository
is still in place, I don’t see this as a crucial problem, as the present
documentation mostly still applies to the Bazaar master/Development
branches. Of course, it is not „supported”, in the sense that the bugs
since discovered will not be fixed there, but they are not very grave. (In
the group, we still use the Bazaar://Development branch for production,
without big problems.)
Once we are finished with the

   - new documentation
   - the proof-of-principle version of the Python stuff
   - all the other most pressing
issues<http://cppqed.sourceforge.net/doxygen/md__home_vukics_work_cppqed_issues.html>
   ,

we will

   - replace the old documentation at SF
   - shut down the Bazaar repository (migrating the yet necessary branches
   to git)
   - publish new tarballs
   - publish a new-version announcement in Computer Physics Communications
   - etc.

This is how I see it, what do you think?
Of course, I would be very glad if you could provide (migrate) in doxygen
documentation that you think appropriate. (Especially concerning cmake and
the Python stuff.)
Best regards,
András


Dr. Andras Vukics
Institute for Theoretical Physics
University of Innsbruck


On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Raimar Sandner
<rai...@ui...>wrote:

> Hi András,
>
> the installation documentation is now horribly outdated. It refers to bzr
> branches (some of them really old like the blitz cvs compatibility branch
> or
> also the BoostIntegratino branch) and still includes the bjam compilation
> method. Also the cmake method needs to be updated.
>
> I would rewrite the instruction to reflect the new git repository layout.
> At
> some time I will also try how it looks on Mac OS at the moment, although I
> don't have an up-to-date version.
>
> A few questions remain: Which of the old special bazaar branches should be
> ported to git? Does a BoostIntegration branch still make sense, without the
> ability to write state files? Actually I think the boost dependence is not
> so
> painful... Should we remove all references to bjam from the documentation,
> including profiling
> (http://cppqed.sourceforge.net/installation.html#profiling)? How about
> the tar
> ball people are pointed to on sourceforge? This is really old, and there
> are
> quite a few downloads per week.
>
> Best regards
> Raimar
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT
> organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance
> affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your
> Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics
> Pro!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Cppqed-support mailing list
> Cpp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppqed-support
>