Re: [boost] [boot] using the boost name on unofficial libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] [boot] using the boost name on unofficial libraries
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-23 08:05:10

On 4/23/2016 7:46 AM, Paul Fultz II wrote:
>
>> On Apr 23, 2016, at 4:22 AM, Sam Kellett <samkellett_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> i see a *lot* of rejected / unfinished libraries that use the boost name
>> with the intentions of one day becoming a boost library. doesn't this
>> affect the brand strength associated with the boost name?
>>
>> i would have thought that it wouldn't be ok to name your library a boost
>> library before it is officially accepted, but that doesn't seem to be the
>> case? or is it the case but it isn't / can't be enforced?
>
> This is because currently a library is required to have the boost namespace before its reviewed, even its later rejected. And when its rejected there may still be users of the library so a name change never occurs.  A better approach would be not to require boost namespace for review, because the boost name should only be used for accepted libraries.

Another reason for the "boost" name, at least in the directory structure 
mentioned in the documentation and being used in source files, is that 
if the library relies on other Boost libraries it is much easier for the 
library to be added to Boost directory structure beneath the 'libs' 
subdirectory for others to use and test the library. So essentially the 
"boost" name gets in the library's code even though the library is not 
an official Boost library. I see nothing wrong with this as it makes it 
much easier for the end-user to use the library. Branding to me is only 
affected if the library claims to be a Boost library when it really is not.