Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe

Subject: Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-22 11:09:52

I think we should immediately remove both boob, baby and babe from the list.

Google searches will be too revealing ;-)

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Matthew Chambers
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:01 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/22/2010 9:22 AM, Roland Bock wrote:
> > Reading the contributions to this thread makes me wonder:
> >
> > How is this ever going to be decided? Is there a policy for changing
> > names within boost?
> There have been a lot of names proposed and quite a bit of dissension about the name changing at all due to build
script breakage.
> However, I'm pretty sure the
> names not derived from "Boost.Build" are disqualified because they would either defeat the purpose of the renaming or
they would
> require rebranding of
> Boost.Build in its entirety.  And the concerns about build script breakage are nullified if my suggestion of leaving a
(deprecated) bjam
> wrapper executable to
> call the new executable is used. So that still leaves a pretty long list, but at least they're all quite similar:
> bb
> bbv2
> bbuild
> bboost
> boostie
> boosty
> buildb
> bmake
> bbmake
> baby
> babe
> b2
> bbl
> bam
> bbt
> boob
> boobi
> 
> Apologies if I missed a few.
> -Matt
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost