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

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposed documentation convention for pre-accepted libs
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-02 16:11:51

On 5/2/2011 12:12 PM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> There was a long thread of discussion about using a logo like
>
> "Proposed for Boost" instead of the proper boost.png logo,

<http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/doc/src/images/Inspired_by_Boost.png>
<http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/doc/src/images/Inspired_by_Boost.svg>
<http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/doc/src/images/Powered_by_Boost.png>
<http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/doc/src/images/Powered_by_Boost.svg>
<http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/doc/src/images/Proposed_for_Boost.png>
<http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/doc/src/images/Proposed_for_Boost.svg>

> 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.

There was work put into the doc tool chain to prevent automatic use of 
the standard Boost logo when using Boostbook. Which obviously was 
circumvented, or otherwise not used, in this case. There are options in 
the Boostbook generation for one to indicate one of the alternate logos. 
I don't remember what the default was changed to after I first changed 
though.

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail