pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions

To: Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions
From: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:07:53 +1100
Cc: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <18825.23091.63084.898574@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1233627045.5518.55.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <18825.23091.63084.898574@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Independent of my deep egotistical reasons for voting to maintain the
"km" prefix, I think Max has a very valid point here.

On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 20:04 +1100, Max Matveev wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:10:45 +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> 
>  nscott> - Renaming kmchart/kmtime -> pmchart/pmtime is fine with me.  I
>  nscott> will keep symlinks for backward compatibility, etc.
> Unless you plan to provide bug-to-bug compatibility between kmchart
> and pmchart I think that renaming it will be a mistake: people who use
> pmchart now (not a lot of them but they do exists) will expect the new
> pmchart to behave the same way the old one behaves so you will need to
> support the same command line options, same behaviours etc. It would
> be easier to keep kmchart name and just let pmchart die.
> 
> max
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/pcp

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>