From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-05 14:28:55
"troy d. straszheim" <troy_at_[hidden]> 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
> 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
> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk