Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

libraries: 1.17 is from 2013? #321

Open
vinniefalco opened this issue Sep 4, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

libraries: 1.17 is from 2013? #321

vinniefalco opened this issue Sep 4, 2024 · 5 comments

Comments

@vinniefalco
Copy link
Member

Boost was launched in 1999 but the website says that version 1.17 is from 2013? At 3 releases per year, 1.17 should have been released in 2004 not 2013. Something is wrong.

@mclow
Copy link

mclow commented Sep 4, 2024

I would tend to believe source forge on this: https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost/
Shows that 1.20 was uploaded there in 2003. (probably generated before that, though, since several releases have that mod date)

@PeterTurcan
Copy link
Collaborator

@vinniefalco Could you possibly add a link to where this erroneous information is? I was unable to locate it in a search of the user or contributor guides - with the link I should at least be able to direct this issue to the correct author - thanks!

@vinniefalco
Copy link
Member Author

vinniefalco commented Sep 24, 2024

@PeterTurcan
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks @vinniefalco. The issue actually occurs in all "Releases" library references from version 1.53.0 back to 1.16.1.
All have "April 13, 2013" as the date above "Documentation" and "Source Code". The actual date under the "Version" heading appears to be correct (or at least in the ball-park). There appear to be a few possible solutions:

  1. We do not need the date repeated in the Documentation/Source Code box - so perhaps just remove the date from this box for all library references.
  2. Go through all the pages from 1.16.1 to 1.53.0 and copy the Version date up to the higher box (or is this process automated?). Seems pointless to me but maybe there was an intended purpose for that date?

@rbbeeston - are you able to direct this issue to the correct recipient?

@vinniefalco
Copy link
Member Author

The database needs to be cleaned up with correct dates set for every library for every release. If this has to be done manually so be it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants