-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Horgan Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 6:37 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation - was C++ Networking Library Release 0.5
Thomas Klimpel wrote:
Then we need a "Developing For" or equivalent logo in addition, because "Proposed for" seems to be reserved for the review queue. I would be also OK with this. I just tried to come closer to a final agreement. (So I was agreeing with Patrick, and explicitly spelled out what it means in my specific case.)
But before it gets on the review queue, it doesn't really have an association with boost
I disagree strongly with this. Stuff in SVN *does* have an association with Boost. We need to have a way of saying that this is "Hoping to be proposed for review for Boost". 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. (It often leads to rejection, sometimes improvement and re-submission, but all too often, loss of promising code). 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. 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? We also need a way to encourage users to try developing stuff - and give their feedback. This is how things get refined. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com