Karl Fogel wrote:
> Blair Zajac <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> I'd like to start to update the RPM spec files and build scripts to
>> put mucc into an RPMs, debs, etc and have this done before 1.5 is
>> branched, given that mucc is such a useful tool.
>> Given that, I thought I'd raise the issue of naming. All our tools
>> are svn*, so should we rename mucc to svnmucc or svn-mucc?
>> Unlike our other tools, mucc has no intrinsic meaning, so the
>> characters svnmucc don't seem to mean much, but now that I see
>> Maybe a short vote on a name?
> svnmucc (since we don't have "svn-admin", etc)
> By the way, I have no objection to releasing this tool standalone now.
> I've said in the past that it should really be subsumed into a new
> 'svn shell' functionality, and still believe that, but we mustn't let
> the perfect be the enemy of the cliché, or however that saying goes.
> mucc is here now, let's support it until we have a real shell, and
> then gradually obsolete it (I'm sure we can find a reasonable way to
> do that, like by not adding any new features) once we have a shell.
In anticipation of the functionality becoming part of a shell-like thing,
let's release the tool as "svnshmucc". ;-)
(But seriously, 'svnmucc' is fine with me.)
C. Michael Pilato <email@example.com>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Tue Apr 24 15:30:38 2007