"troy d. straszheim" <troy@resophonic.com> writes:
Rob Stewart wrote:
I have noticed the problem, but since such libraries may not be accepted, isn't it wrong to put Boost in the name, even if qualified?
I really agree with this, and I don't think a disclaimer or the "proposed" is strong enough at all, and I think the feared dilution is already occurring. I have wondered at every review why reviewed libraries come with docs that already have the boost name (and logo!) on them, completely indistinguishable from an accepted library.
Others obviously feel differently, but that *really* doesn't bother me, and I don't want to make busywork for library authors by forcing them to make more trivial changes than neccessary when a library is accepted.
At the first review, being new to all this, I surmised that boost was some kind of old-boy's club, where it was given that libraries that went up for review would be accepted
Sometimes I fear that we may be accepting too many libraries because people want to be nice, and the only people doing reviews have a strong interest in getting the functionality in some form. Just a vague concern, no real evidence.
and that the real task in getting "in" to boost was more a political one: to schmooze your way in to getting your library reviewed at all... Now I see that it's not accurate, but it wasn't a good impression, it really erodes the value of the name "boost".
Wow, that really says something. Thanks for the perspective. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com