On 20/01/11 16:45, Robert Ramey wrote:
Mateusz Loskot wrote:
On 19/01/11 18:20, Dave Abrahams wrote:
At Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:56:58 +0000, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
On 19/01/11 16:27, Barend Gehrels wrote:
On 19-1-2011 17:19, Dave Abrahams wrote:
At Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:58:09 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote: > Although cpp-netlib > is there, I'm just not that creative to come up with an > alternate name for it. :D cpp-net? :-)
For a library not (yet) in boost, cpp-netlib is appropriate.
As soon as it is in boost, Boost.Net?
We had the same thing, ggl (generic geometry library) became Boost.Geometry because both generic and library were redundant.
Speaking of names and (my) personal preferences, Boost.Image or Boost.Raster would be better than GIL.
+1!
I don't want to be too poisonous here, wondering what would be a procedure to rename library? A renaming review? Simple poll?
As one of the main complainers regarding cryptic library names, let me say that trying to address after the fact is a really bad idea.
You are right.
Maintaining an already accepted library is a much larger task than it would first appear. The idea that a maintainer is on the hoook for what ever some other group "decides" (none of whose members would actually be doing the work) is not really realistic. The time for dealing with this is during the review. One of the strengths of the review system is that it actually provides a design cutoff. This is necessary to actually get anything accomplished. The lack of the "cutoff" is likely the single frequent of failed projects in all sectors - industry, government, and private domain. Lack of a cutoff is another name for "feature creep"
Understood. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org Member of ACCU, http://accu.org