<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: vars naming scheme concerns



Hi,

* Rado S [06-06-02 14:37:44 +0200] wrote:

[...]

Summarizing, this makes:
- no extra cost,
- while meaningful names are a gain for the manual users (and
those who don't use them but go via adapted examples first).
Where fails my logic?
Personally I think you assume that people read, which I doubt somehow. 
At least we should be pessimistic enough to assume people don't read 
announcements and upgrading notes.
As the debate continues and as I read some votes, most people don't seem 
to wonder _if_ to change but _how_ a good way could be (since they're 
afraid of the abrupt change). And for a really good way, we need to be 
very pessimistic and give people (users, admins, ...) plenty of time to 
prepare.
My idea so far (to make it more concrete): make this change along other 
re-structuring public in mutt 2.0 which follows 1.6. In the announcement 
for 1.6 we already have to note that this release will be the last one 
in the 1.x series with the old naming scheme. The first commit to the 
1.7 (or whatever devel branch will lead to 2.0) branch should be to do 
the change. Also I think since mutt is quite popular (since the muttng 
fork made it to the media), mutt 2.0 will be worth a news article. Maybe 
we should collect mail addresses of some news sites to ask for helping 
to spread the word...
We could then make a snapshot of the first 1.7 commit with the only 
difference to official 1.6 being the name changes. This snapshot could 
be used by port/package maintainers (which we have to mail privately) to 
test their system's upgrading mechanisms.
  bye, Rocco
--
:wq!