Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Compute v0.1 Released
From: Matt Calabrese (rivorus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-03-16 20:49:52
Could we just adopt having something like a consistent graphic at the top
and different style or something for proposed libraries?
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Lars Viklund <zao_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 05:03:57PM -0700, Kyle Lutz wrote:
> > I'm proud to announce the initial release (version 0.1) of
> > Boost.Compute! It is available on GitHub  and instructions for
> > using the library can be found in the documentation .
> Looks neat.
> > I hope to propose Boost.Compute for review in the next few months but
> > for I'm looking for more wide-spread testing and feedback from the
> > Boost community (please note the FAQ  and design rationale 
> > where I hope to have answered some common questions).
> Not to be the one that's the one that has to drag out the naggy old
> discussion every time this happens, but pet peeve of mine...
> What ever happened to avoiding the use of "Boost.Something" names for
> proposed libraries and libraries that have not successfully reviewed
> Just look at the constant confusion there is around things like
> "Boost.Process" which is regularly thought to be under the Boost
> umbrella and keeps getting questions as to where and how to get hold of
> the multitude of releases of it.
> In my eyes, not being very explicit about library naming results in a
> lot of confusion between the pre-review state of a library and its life
> after the review cycle, whether it's accepted or not.
> (yes, there's a small note at the bottom of the documentation)
> Lars Viklund | zao_at_[hidden]
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
-- -Matt Calabrese
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk