-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Stewart, Robert Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:39 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
We need to have a way of saying that this is "Hoping to be proposed for review for Boost". Really?
Really!
An important part of the review process, IMO, is getting a user base - this is where the bugs get flushed out, and the unpopular design decisions flagged up. To leave it all to a final review is far too late
Having a special logo for this state doesn't help that process along, does it?
Yes IMO.
My suggestion was to use the "powered by" logo as a placeholder in such cases.
Does that detract from a work in progress?
Yes - I think this muddies the waters. IMO "Powered by" should only be for those (Google, Microsoft, Nokia...) using Boost for their *finished end products*, not for libraries for submission to Boost. It's a 'thank you Boost' message - like the web listing of products/companies that acknowledge that they are using Boost. (Aside - I can't conceive of a new Boost library that doesn't use Boost, so there is no need to acknowledge it?)
This is why I long argued for a formal "Not accepted, Under development and worth giving a try but don't count on it too much yet" status.
I think that is well handled by having a page on the Boost web site with a list of just such projects, provided those with write access are willing to take on that chore.
Agreed the wiki site is helpful - but marking the docs with a specific logo is also helpful in a different way. The main thing I think we are all trying to avoid is not-reviewed docs with the Boost logo, implying that they are reviewed and released.
A different logo (Developing for Boost? Candidate for Boost? Development for Boost? Prototype for Boost? RFC for Boost? ) would provide this. Perhaps we still haven't got the right words yet?
I can understand that a library developer would like to gain notoriety by association with Boost while developing a library for possible inclusion in Boost, but does a logo for that spur the author to do anything s/he wouldn't have done already?
I think it does.
Does such a logo inform those examining such a library about something not already known?
Yes - it says this is getting to a usable state, and perhaps nearing proposal for review.
I really like Candidate for Boost or maybe Submission Candidate for Boost
One isn't a candidate for anything until one announces one's candidacy. In
this case, the
announcement of candidacy is a formal review request. If there's to be a logo for libraries under development but not submitted for review, "developing for" works well.
"Developing for Boost" works fine for me too, but "Under construction for" works too. The main thing I think we are all trying to avoid is not-reviewed docs with the Boost logo, implying that they are reviewed and released. Paul