Re: [Cppqed-support] Old bzr branches, documentation and other outdated stuff

[Raimar S. <rai...@ui...>]

Dear András,

ok, that's fine. The only things which are in fact out of sync with the 
documentation are the Ubuntu Packages. I will at least rewrite this section in 
the sphinx documentation, because the package names have changed.

Best regards
Raimar

On Sunday, December 22, 2013 11:45:10 you wrote:
> 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_iss
> ues.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 the installation documentation is now horribly outdated.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.clktr
> > k
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cppqed-support mailing list
> > Cpp...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppqed-support