On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 15:02 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:10:57AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-05-13 at 15:19 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > The Change Page did not even try to weight pros and cons. IMHO cons (as > > > described above) are worse that living with original name, which is > > > well-known, well-documented, and relied on. > > > > Another +1 here. I think the name should stay. Changing it brings no > > significant benefits but will certainly break stuff, and render huge > > amounts of existing information obsolete. > > I happen to agree, but that argument was lost on the yum -> dnf > rename. No it wasn't. There are many precedents for keeping some things after a rename where changing them would be too destructive, and we even have a perfectly good rationale that's already been cited in this thread: the repository metadata format is still the same one originally defined by yum and could still be referred to as the 'yum repository format'. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
