Re: [boost] Review of Generic Image Library (GIL)

From: Lubomir Bourdev (lbourdev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-15 13:49:28

Lubomir Bourdev wrote:
>Design, documentation, broad domain, code quality - these are all valid
criteria for a successful boost submission.
>But does boost require that a library be extensively used by many
people before being accepted? How many of the boost libraries have been
extensively used and proven in the long run upon their initial
acceptance? Can we please have the same criteria used for other boost
submissions be used for GIL.

Lubomir Bourdev wrote:
>And again, let's compare with the other libraries. Granted, GIL is
larger than the average boost library, but we provide 40 pages of design
guide, 12 pages of tutorial, an hour of video presentation with 150+
slides and a full Doxigen browsing tree.

I just want to clarify to everyone that by these comments I did not in
any way mean to suggest that boost libraries are not well documented or
not "proven in the long run". I did not say that but my words could
easily be misconstrued in this way. We at Adobe have embraced the boost
libraries for many projects precisely because we believe they are solid
and reliable. We think boost is an excellent initiative and this is why
we would like to support this initiative by contributing GIL, and
perhaps other future libraries. I apologize if my comparison may have
offended anyone.

Lubomir