Re: [boost] Proposed documentation convention for pre-accepted libs

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposed documentation convention for pre-accepted libs
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-02 13:12:14

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of Marsh Ray
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 5:40 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Cc: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Francisco_Jos=E9?="@wowbagger.osl.iu.edu
> Subject: [boost] Proposed documentation convention for pre-accepted libs
> 
> On 05/02/2011 10:33 AM, Rene Rivera wrote:
> > On 5/1/2011 4:08 PM, Francisco José Tapia wrote:
> >> or if you want a quick look , you can see in my web page<
> >> http://fjtapia.webs.com/works/countertree/index.html>
> >
> > Please adjust your docs to make it *very* clear this is not an
> > official, or accepted, Boost C++ Library.
> 
> I suggest that Boost adopt a convention for the documentation of libraries
that
> are in the formally proposed or trial balloon state.
> 
> It seems like a good idea to have an alternate set of identifiers, perhaps
an
> alternate BoostBook stylesheet, macros, etc. that library authors can use
when
> developing libraries that they think they might want to submit. A set of
> guidelines that would make it easy for an author to put together
everything for a
> well-integrated submission without it looking like he's representing his
library as
> an official Boost project.

There was a long thread of discussion about using a logo like

"Proposed for Boost" instead of the proper boost.png logo,

but people got bored and we failed to reach agreement.

I still support this simple mechanism.  It encourages authors to get the
docs to a good state, but it is quite clear that is not (yet) a Boost
reviewed and approved library.

A Quickbook [caution This is not yet a Boost library!]  is another simple
(and popular) option.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow,
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]  07714330204
pbristow_at_[hidden]