Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe

Subject: Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
From: Klaim (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-22 14:18:51

Hello

This suggestion:

> Use a decorrelated name (e.g 'stand'), or something that has no explicit meaning, like foreign language ('brik'), or acronyms (many already proposed). If it's possible avoid numbers, I have the feeling it ships better.

Made me think of the word "grok".
Maybe that can be a direction, or not. ( bgrok? bbgrok? just grok? )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok

The previous propositions also made me think of something "tool"
based, as it's a "boost(ified/er) build tool" : bbtool
Seems less problematic than bb

Or maybe something more explicit : "generate" : bgen ?

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 19:55, Bo Persson <bop_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>> I think we should immediately remove both boob, baby and babe from
>> the list.
>>
>> Google searches will be too revealing ;-)
>>
>> Paul
>
> And how good is B2 ?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit
>
>
> or BBL?
>
> http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/BBL
>
> 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
>
> http://www.krishna.se/
>
>
> Bo Persson
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> -----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. Â 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
>> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>