Well, I cannot speak for the gil developers. But I think it comes down to two things. 1. extension that depend on third party code Take for example the jpeg io extension. Should that be part of the boost source tree? I don't think boost feels responsible that the jpeg code is compatible with all the platform boost is trying hard to be compatible with. So, I think those extension should not be part of gil, that means boost. They have to survive by their own. Maybe the gil guys consider a review system similar to the boost's review system. And maybe they might even consider putting together a regression test system. I would love that. 2. extension that don't depend on third party code I believe that gil might consider including basic algorithm extension like convolution kernels, drawing primitives, etc. New users to gil might be disappointed by the lack of such simple things. So, in creating a blooming community around gil I think gil should be open to such extensions. The gil guys might think different, here.But I don't see why such extension should not be added to gil. Just my 2 cents. Tom, is your code gil 2 ready? Also, can you please test if your latest code is in the repository? On 4/14/07, Tom Brinkman <reportbase@gmail.com> wrote:
The adobe developers have indicated that they will be distributing the "gil" extensions with their distribution. In your opinion, what level of scrutiny should the "gil" extensions recieve? Are full reviews warrented for the smaller extensions, which is where I would include my freetype wrapper. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost