Subject: Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation
From: Patrick Horgan (phorgan1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-04 17:53:05
Michael Fawcett wrote:
> I agree. Might I suggest "Potential" or "Unreviewed"
Thank you Michael. What about the issue of the implication of a
connection though? If the library is withdrawn, or never makes it into
the review process, does it go through life with "UNREVIEWED BOOST C++
LIBRARIES" attached to it? That sounds like it's still a boost library,
just in a special category.
> above the Boost
> logo in place of "Developing for"? Disregard the plurality mismatch
> since we do that already when the "Boost C++ Libraries" logo appears
> with a single library. It's a given that it's "Part of" the "Boost
> C++ Libraries". It will also be a given that an unreviewed potential
> library is "Part of" the "Potential Boost C++ Libraries"
I don't think that there's anything about "UNREVIEWED BOOST C++
LIBRARIES" that automatically tells anyone unfamiliar with the process
that the implication is that it isn't a boost library at all. And it
isn't. It may or may not later be submitted. After applying for
submission, a review manager may or may not accept it for submission.
It could go through it's life with that icon, and it says too much. The
library may be wonderful, or may be crap, but it's not a boost library.
Same arguments for "POTENTIAL BOOST C++ LIBRARIES". It's not clear that
it is not in some way a boost library. I think it says too much. I'd
rather go with one that may say too little, i.e. "POWERED BY BOOST C++
LIBRARIES", as a placeholder in the docs for the library for the reasons
that Robert gave earlier in this discussion.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk