Subject: Re: [boost] [boot] using the boost name on unofficial libraries
From: Sam Kellett (samkellett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-23 09:17:32
On 23 April 2016 at 14:08, Klemens Morgenstern <klemens.morgenstern_at_[hidden]>
> Am 23.04.2016 um 11:22 schrieb Sam Kellett:
>> 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?
> I am one of those doing that with boost.process.
> For me as a user of boost, I don't see a problem with that. It is rather
> obvious which libraries are accepted and which are not, so there's no
> confusion. Since boost is a open-source library collection, I think it is
> rather clear, that proposed libraries are already named that. So I don't
> see a weakening of the boost name there; it's rather a strenghening of the
> proposed library.
> That is, I think there should be a boost.process library and I found the
> existing one and used it. If that would've been named differently, I might
> never have identified it as a boost candidate and might have gone with
> something else as a basis. So understanding, that there is an effort to
> make a boost library really helps in collaboration on those libraries. The
> boost name gives it publicity which helps to get more people involved.
that's kinda my point though. it's using boost's name to say "i am of this
level of quality" and yet there is no verification of this (such as an
accepted boost review).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk