On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Patrick Horgan <phorgan1@gmail.com> wrote:
I've mentioned before that I think "developing for" is unclear, but I haven't really said what bothers me about it. The sense you mean, I think, is "I'm developing this software for possible future inclusion in boost". The one that I worry about is, "I'm acting as some sort of (quasi-)official representative of boost, and I'm developing this for them". It's as if I was a contractor or some super duper special boost guy, and I was "developing for" boost under contract. After all, if I sent you an email saying that I was working on a library that I was "developing for" Apple, it's what you would assume. Now I know that it doesn't happen like that with boost, but most people in the software community don't read this list, don't know anything about how boost works, and could just as easily come to that conclusion as the other. It could easily be misconstrued because it doesn't clearly say, "I'm developing this with the thought that I might submit it to boost and see how it goes."
I agree. Might I suggest "Potential" or "Unreviewed" above the Boost logo in place of "Developing for"? Disregard the plurality mismatch since we do that already when the "Boost C++ Libraries" logo appears with a single library. It's a given that it's "Part of" the "Boost C++ Libraries". It will also be a given that an unreviewed potential library is "Part of" the "Potential Boost C++ Libraries" --Michael Fawcett