spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: [spf-devel] [POLITICAL INFIGHTING] Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2

2004-07-28 07:37:28
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:49:20 -0500, Seth Goodman
<sethg(_at_)goodmanassociates(_dot_)com> wrote:
From: Meng Weng Wong
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 8:22 AM


On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:28:46AM +0200, Roger Moser wrote:
| It would have been the proper etiquette to ask James if he
| minds that you
| name your libraries libspf2 and libsrs2.

while that this is true, do folks feel it is now a good idea
to push for a renaming effort?  doing a renaming will be a
huge job, apparently, and will slow down the coding work
that is being done in favour of administrative "overhead".
more than likely the *2 projects will lose a number of
volunteers.

The fact that there are two libraries with exceedingly similar names
purporting to do the same thing is a source of confusion to potential
adopters and gives the appearance of infighting, which in this case is
true.  I have no desire to take sides in an argument as petty as the
name of a library.  However, since it looks bad from the viewpoint of
potential adopters, I feel that something needs to be done.

Since James lib was originally named libspf and Wayne's was originally
named libspf-alt, I suggest the best course of action for the community
would be to revert back to those names.  I respectfully disagree with
Meng that renaming a library is a huge job.  It is a more like a minor
headache, and libspf-alt was already renamed once before.

I agree with the position that the libspf2 name causes confusion, both
for SPF versioning and library versioning.  I also feel that naming
their library libspf2 was not a diplomatic move for that project to
pursue.

I believe the level of difficulty or lack there of has already been
demonstrated by the move from libspf-alt to libspf2.

I suggest that a possible course of action may be for both projects to
rename their libraries and thus end the confusion and the naming
similarity problem.

Should libspf be renamed and libspf2 not be renamed, the SPF
versioning confusion would still occur, but the library versioning
confusion would be resolved and the current libspf project would no
longer have to field questions concerning the name similarities;
advantages for the libspf project renaming their library regardless of
the actions of the libspf2 project.

For the libspf project to rename it's library would show good will to
the community.

For the libspf2 project to rename it's library would also show good
will to the community.

The community is being hurt by the current situation and I believe
there has to be an approach we can all benefit from.

-- 
David R. Sowder
University of Texas at Arlington
Department of Modern Languages
Language Acquisition Center Supervisor
Work: davids(_at_)uta(_dot_)edu
Personal: david(_at_)sowder(_dot_)com
Testing: davidrsowder(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
http://david.sowder.com/


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