Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481 ------- Additional Comments From lbrindle@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-10 23:43 EST ------- The main arguments against documentation-devel seem to be that it is "too generic" and doesn't fit existing convention. Being "too generic" is not, in this case, necessarily a bad thing. Documentation-devel is a very broad tool. Not only is it broad now, but it has the capacity to become even broader. The name is certainly canonical, as jwulf stated, but so it should be - no other tool exists that is like it (afaik). Convention is rather a loose term - particularly in FOSS. The existing documentation on what is considered 'conventional' varies greatly from project to project and, as mentioned by jens peterson in comment #10 "our package naming guidelines ... were vague on this case." With that in mind, documentation-devel is a set of tools for the development of documentation - this seems logical to me. Add to this the fact that the name is not being used, the fact that the name is commonly known in the society (evidenced by the Google ranking) and the fact that it has been used under this name for a lengthy period of time. Having a 'too generic' name could impact some users, most though would search on the term 'Documentation' and, through great Google rankings, will find the tool they're after. Changing the name at this stage *will* negatively impact a large body of users. From a cost/benefit perspective, having a 'too generic' name is a small price to pay. Perhaps we should be concentrating on the tool and not the name. It is a fantastic tool that I have been using for nearly six months now, and from the feedback I have had there is a definite need for it to be released to the wider community. We all owe a debt of gratitude to jfearn, not the injustice of squabbling over the name of the thing. The principal of FOSS is that we all get to take part in the development and use of tools that simply wouldn't be available otherwise. Why are we getting hung up because a name is "too generic"? The tool works, and the community want it. Let's concentrate on getting it out there and we can bicker over it later. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review