[boot] using the boost name on unofficial libraries
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?
On Apr 23, 2016, at 4:22 AM, Sam Kellett
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.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On 4/23/2016 7:46 AM, Paul Fultz II wrote:
On Apr 23, 2016, at 4:22 AM, Sam Kellett
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.
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. I think the only chance you have to get a library named diffently into boost, would only work if you have a complete library and then rename it into boost. BUT at the point when you would refactor it, it would likely already have users, for which you would break the code. I.e. the current boost.process 0.5 is already used. What could be done, is to require the libraries to be named boost.experimental.*name* (or develop or proposed). Then you could add a macro somewhere (maybe in boost/config), which just pulls everything from the corresponding namespace into the boost namespace. That way one could use it before it's approved and then later on, without renaming everything in the user-code.
On 23 April 2016 at 14:08, Klemens Morgenstern
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).
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).
Well, I would understand that as "I am trying to be". E.g., I don't know if this library was ever officially proposed, but I think it's quite obvious that it's not boost approved: http://turtle.sourceforge.net/ I think it's only a problem if you have a library really pretending to be a part of boost. But even then: the people who only want to use boost, will probably download the complete package from the boost homepage. And if you clone boost from github, you won't get any not approved libraries. When I only used boost, I saw it as one thing; I only started to look into libraries as single things, when I got involved with writing code for it. So I can only say: if I find something named boost which is not official, I know that it isn't. And I understand it as a stated goal.
On 4/23/16 6:17 AM, Sam Kellett wrote:
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).
I see you're point - but I don't think it's currently a big problem. The documentation for libraries review and in the boost library incubator use a logo which is pretty explicit about "proposed for boost" or "Not an official Boost Library". If someone were to include the logo in a way that suggests that it's an official boost library, I'm guessing that it won't take too much internet shaming to fix the situation. Some things are just big enough problems to spend any time trying to fix. Robert Ramey
-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Sam Kellett Sent: 23 April 2016 10:23 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] [boot] using the boost name on unofficial libraries
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 don't feel it is a problem provided it is clearly stated that it is not yet an accepted Boost library. All proposed libraries that I have seen have a note warning this. Many also have a 'Proposed for Boost' logo (recommended) rather than the 'official' Boost logo. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830
participants (6)
-
Edward Diener
-
Klemens Morgenstern
-
Paul A. Bristow
-
Paul Fultz II
-
Robert Ramey
-
Sam Kellett