Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boostlibraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boostlibraries
From: Rob Stewart (rob.stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-16 08:28:02

On May 16, 2015 2:46:29 AM MDT, Michael Ainsworth <michael_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On 16 May 2015, at 1:21 pm, "charleyb123 ." <charleyb123_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> > 
> > Michael Ainsworth spaketh:
> >> <snip>,
> >> On a related topic, there are a number of libraries that haven't
> been
> >> accepted into Boost which have Boost in their name, (perhaps
> >> unintentionally) implying that they have been accepted. It'd be
> good if the
> >> Boost community made a ruling that future library submissions
> include in
> >> their name (and C++ namespaces)
> "Booster"/"Boostable"/some-other-variant, so
> >> as to indicate it's "not yet official" status. Once accepted, a
> simple find
> >> and replace would be required to reflect the status change.

Authors of proposed libraries are supposed to add disclaimers that the libraries haven't been accepted and use a special logo in their documentation. References to them should always be just the library name, without "Boost", or the "proposed Boost library X".

We do not require a special namespace, but that's not a bad idea.

> > I think this is a very good idea -- reserving the "Boost" name for
> > libraries actually accepted to Boost.
> 
> How enforceable is this?

We will check with the Software Freedom Conservancy on that.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)