On 05/18/2016 09:38 PM, 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'.
...and could still be used by yum on older fedoras (or RHEL-7/CentOS-7),
if someone had an use case for that.
-- Martian
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
