Am 14.06.2014 03:24, schrieb Michael Scherer: > Le samedi 14 juin 2014 à 03:10 +0200, Reindl Harald a écrit : >>> Like they complained when up2date was replaced by yum ? >>> when zipper replaced whatever they used to have on *suse before ? >>> When pkgin replaced pkg_add on some of the BSD ? >>> >>> It happened in the past, and I do not remember seeing so much >>> complains.. >> >> maybe people just have enough of repeated iterations every >> few months breaking compatibility left and right while it would >> have been possible to replace/improve things without breakage > > You may not realize, but having someone who do not do your job telling > you how to do it is perceived as pretty annoying for a lot of people. you may not realize but having someone deciding changes and what you have to adopt on your setups is pretty annoying for a lot of people called "users" >> as said repeatly in that thread: >> >> go ahead and propose to rename GNOME3 because it is no longer GNOME > > Gnome is not a single software, it is a brand, and a collection of > software. Keeping the brand is likely the reason why it was not renamed. > > But the part that did change visually, ie the windows manager and the > shell among others got renamed from whatever it was named to > gnome-shell. Same goes for rhytmbox, afaik. that does not change the fact from the users point of view it is no longer GNOME >> go ahead and propose to rename Linux because 3.15 is no longer Linux 1.0 > > I fail to see how comparing changes in more than 15 years is relevant to > the current discussion. Nor even how anecdotal point of data is > relevant. i fail to see the need of rename the well known package manager >> and that changes where much bigger than a fork of YUM renamed >> for no good reason especially in context of replace it > > it was renamed to provides side by side installation among others. I am > sure that people would have been more upset if it was not done this way. > ( as seen by the migration to gnome 3/kde 4 and people complaining > exactly on that ). because both where a complete different product and not just a new version, DNF is just a new version of YUM and that's what major version numbers are for > So maybe you should propose to have dnf named yum 4.0, and then since > that's a major version, we would be ok to change the behavior, command > lines switch, configuration and backend in a backward incompatible > way? yes > Or even with the name yum and a clear indication, that's something that > shouldn't be changed, in which case, yum 3 behavior should be kept, > which mean "keeping all the code and behavior until later" ? jesus christ the code behind has *nothing* to do with the userinterface and options - i have rewritten code of software i maintain for a decade now multiple times and in the meantime there is for sure not a single line the same as started 2003 without break user expectations
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
