On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Luca Capello wrote:
FWIW both software have been published in scientific papers, thus
changing one name or the other can be more difficult.
Yes - but it can be made public on their website.
However, while Steffen's point is valid, it's not problematic ATM, since
we don't have the "other" snplink [1] in Debian yet.
That's a bad argument - using a name which is known to be choosen by
another project in the same field just sucks in general. And we can
not really assume that the other (original) snplink will not be packaged
once.
Fully ACK, something like "population-link" or "wgaplink" [2] would have
been clearly better [3].
[3] yes, I know it's sound worse than "plink", but it's at least an
acronym of the title of the paper
Well, I just went over one great renaming this year - I will not join
another one - but the name space pollution should be avoided in any
case.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
