On Sunday 31 January 2010 04:26:32 pm Thomas Klimpel wrote:
Andrey Semashev wrote:
I think the original proposal comes from http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2010/01/161356.php and the
Yes, I read that post, but it misses one (quite common, I believe) case, when the rejected library continues to live outside of Boost, with little or no intention to resubmit the review. It is still designed to fit into Boost infrastructure, so I don't think that "powered by" or "using" variants are adequate.
Perhaps it wasn't a good idea to split one of the use cases into many logos with different meanings.
You may be right. The essence of the whole discussion is protection of the official logo. It somehow - with my help I think - became a discussion of a logo per state of a submission or use-case. It may be that documentation using a Boost logo should somehow formally state the relationship the library has with boost. But the logo may not be the best tool for that. Instead, if the library has a formal state according to Boost submission, review or release processes this can be stated clearly in a mandatory legend similar to the listings in: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_41_0 The First Release and Standard fields are only used if appropriate. For other libraries other fields apply. E.g. for submissions, the state of the submission would be stated in the legend, etc.
Perhaps one "draft for boost" logo would be enough,
Perhaps - I dislike draft though. I kind of think you should be able to make draft documentation for new releases at any time. Not only before it is accepted an in an official boost release. For drafts, you can mark the hole thing with a watermark, or something else radical - you don't need to mess with the logo.
so it would be clear that the library is somehow associated with boost, but not an accepted boost library.
I agree that this should be the main purpose of the logo variants. I guess I got carried away with a logo variant for any occasion. One logo for submissions, and one for users are probably all the variants needed.
And a rejected library can just keep using that "draft for boost" logo, if it wants to.
Even here "Proposal for boost" is better than "Draft". A proposal is still a proposal after it has been rejected. A submission for review should not be a draft. Any of these logo variants becomes kind of meaningless though if a maintained library is clearly not going to be resubmitted. Such libraries with continued active development would probably move away from the logo anyway, so this is no real life problem. -- bjorn