From: Christian Henning (chhenning_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-14 13:13:54
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_at_[hidden]> 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
> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk