Subject: Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-04 12:59:38
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> > Stewart, Robert
> > > Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> > > > 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
> > Having a special logo for this state doesn't help that
> > process along, does it?
> Yes IMO.
I don't understand how. Would you care to explain?
> > My suggestion was to use the "powered by" logo as a
> > placeholder in such cases.
> > Does that detract from a work in progress?
> Yes - I think this muddies the waters.
> IMO "Powered by" should only be for those (Google, Microsoft,
> Nokia...) using
> Boost for their *finished end products*, not for libraries
> for submission to
> Boost. It's a 'thank you Boost' message - like the web listing of
> products/companies that acknowledge that they are using Boost.
> (Aside - I can't conceive of a new Boost library that doesn't
> use Boost, so there is no need to acknowledge it?)
Doesn't that allow for using a "powered by" logo as a placeholder for libraries under development is appropriate since they use Boost? The logo isn't wrong and its merely a placeholder for when the library is accepted and can use the "real" logo.
A rejected library maintained outside Boost, rather than for resubmission, would correctly use the "powered by" logo without need to change. Thus, the driver is for a library to want to move past the "powered by" stage to the official logo stage. Using a "developing for" logo means a rejected library not resubmitted should change to "powered by." How can we enforce that? If all such libraries start with "powered by," they'll be correct when they are developed without further intent to be submitted and the author of accepted libraries will gladly expend effort to use the official logo.
My point is that, long term, using "powered by" as a placeholder ensures that libraries have the right logo.
> > > > 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.
> > I think that is well handled by having a page on the Boost
> > web site with a list of just such projects, provided those
> > with write access are willing to take on that chore.
> Agreed the wiki site is helpful - but marking the docs with a
> specific logo is also helpful in a different way.
I'm not convinced, but there are plenty of others that can contribute to the decision.
> The main thing I think we are all trying to avoid is
> not-reviewed docs with the
> Boost logo, implying that they are reviewed and released.
Yes, but also that rejected libraries not imply acceptance.
> > > > 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 can understand that a library developer would like to
> > gain notoriety by association with
> > Boost while developing a library for possible inclusion in
> > Boost, but does a logo for that
> > spur the author to do anything s/he wouldn't have done already?
> I think it does.
I don't get it.
> > Does such a logo inform those examining such a library
> > about something not already known?
> Yes - it says this is getting to a usable state, and perhaps
> nearing proposal for review.
If all libraries, at any stage of development, can use the "developing for" logo, it means nothing but that the library is intended, one day, to be submitted. There is no implication of quality or nearness to review.
> > > I really like Candidate for Boost or maybe Submission
> > > Candidate for Boost
> > If there's to be a logo for libraries
> > under development but not submitted for review, "developing
> > for" works well.
> "Developing for Boost" works fine for me too, but "Under
> construction for" works too.
Three words, with a long one in the middle, doesn't fit nicely.
Rob Stewart robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk