Subject: Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
From: Bo Persson (bop_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-22 13:55:26
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> I think we should immediately remove both boob, baby and babe from
> the list.
> Google searches will be too revealing ;-)
And how good is B2 ?
Be Back Later sounds bad for a fast(?) build system
and if we want to avoid religious connection, how good is BBT?
Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
>> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Matthew
>> 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:
>> Apologies if I missed a few.
>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk