On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:38:37PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > 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'. I believe we are in agreement about the present change under discussion (don't change things needlessly). My point was that we (as a project) couldn't agree to keep the CLI command named "yum" for the same reasons. Maybe over time that will become true if/when "yum" stops warning people to change to "dnf". -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
