Graham Wilson wrote:
Naming-wise, I think it would be best to continue to use the fetchmail
name. It wouldn't require and changes in the codebase, and to me it is
the most logical thing to do. The only reason not to would be if esr
wanted to continue development under the old name. Whatever happens
though with regards to naming, I think it is a small detail.
I was half-joking when I mentioned naming; in many ways it is a small
detail, but it can also be psychologically important.
I think that keeping the name unchanged without ESR's approval would be
tantamount to a hostile takeover. I wouldn't be comfortable keeping the
fetchmail name unchanged for a fork unless either Eric said go ahead or we
got some confirmation that for whatever reason he's not coming back to it.
Otherwise I prefer adding some tag to identify it as a new branch of
development, with the possibility open of changing back in the future if
that were to become appropriate.
One other thought I had... if Eric does want to rewrite fetchmail entirely,
it would seem objectively appropriate for that rewrite effort to have a
new name, and a new effort based on the old codebase would seem to deserve
the old name. But again, I don't want to act on assumptions about Eric's
intentions.
For now, I propose the name of "Community Fetchmail", with the installed
filenames remaining the same. (This time the analogy is to GNU
Ghostscript vs Aladdin/AFPL Ghostscript, without the license mess.)
Eric, do you have a problem with a new group continuing fetchmail
development under the fetchmail name?
Unfortunately, part of the problem here is that Eric's unresponsiveness is
exactly what is prompting this, so I'm not optimistic a response about the
name.
--
==============================| "A slice of life isn't the whole cake
Rob Funk <rfunk(_at_)funknet(_dot_)net> | One tooth will never make a full
grin"
http://www.funknet.net/rfunk | -- Chris Mars, "Stuck in Rewind"