Subject: Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation - was C++ Networking Library Release 0.5
From: Patrick Horgan (phorgan1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-03 19:06:44
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> ... elision by patrick...
> 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?
I really like Candidate for Boost or maybe Submission Candidate for Boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk