On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 05:44:00PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Apr 15 10:17, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>Having said that, should we really rename the registry keys, what do we >>>do with the "Program Options" and the two "heap_foo" values? >> >>I'd like to keep the "Program Options" and nuke the "heap_foo" options. > >Maybe you can get rid of heap_chunk_in_mb but it's still not clear that >we can get rid of heap_slop_in_mb. The strange allocation in 2003 and >later is a problem and just because we had nobody complaining for a >while doesn't mean the current slop value is always sufficient. I'm >for keeping this option. > >>I also object to using "Red Hat" as the "owner" [...] > >Red Hat *is* the owner of the code, regardless of the registry key you >want to use. I know that you have mixed feelings about Red Hat, >however, assuming the code is owned by the FSF, would you object >against a parent key name of FSF as well?
Ok, since my motives for having an opinion are in question, I will withdraw from the discussion, rather than spending time on pointless self-justification. cgf
