On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:15:29 -0400, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Torsten Curdt wrote: > > +1 for the branch > > > > and although I really like the name "tani" > > I think we should stick to what we decided. > > no fancy names. > > > > +1 for keeping the "new-kernel" (or naming > > it "block-kernel") > > Hmmm, what about butterfly then? > > The problem with calling it "new-kernel" is that the new kernel is just > part of what that branch will host and this will create naming issues.
Good point. > As for giving up the codename: unlike tomcat's catalina or woody, we > will not use "tani" in the package name or in any part of the contract, > since we already expect "tani" to be just a codename and to be thrown > down the drain once we are done with it and the community decides what > to do. Good point. > Just like Ugo, I feel the need for a clean slate and a place where I can > work without breaking everybody else's code. I personally don't care if > the code will be used or not, what I care is to create a prototype to > show to this community and to my group at MIT, what real blocks can give > you and how they can make your life better (and, for my group at MIT, > show why Cocoon is not just an XSLT servlet anymore, shrug) Sounds great. I see distinction between "code names" like this and final block names (which I still think don't serve us well). Geoff (sorry I've been out of touch)
