[csw-maintainers] stub naming

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi Phil,

(moving to maintainers@)

Am 02.06.2011 um 21:55 schrieb Philip Brown:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Tue May 17 12:47:05 -0400 2011:
>> 
>>> FYI, to tie loose ends together in this archive; since you declined
>>> to start a vote off, I have started a discussion about stub naming
>>> on the maintainer list .
>> 
>> Nobody seems to have an opinion on this in your spun out
>> thread...batching?
> 
> Well, on the one hand, there has been no general discussion, which is
> unfortunate. However, nor is there a "majority of maintainers" (or
> even anything close to it) who have spoken up on this issue. Please
> set up a vote on it.
> 
> I would suggest a format similar to
> http://wiki.opencsw.org/vote-release-process, and that the ballot
> reference the wiki page, giving as voting choices only,
> 
> "option A, on http....."
> "option B, on http..."
> 
> that way, people have to at least go to the page, to know what they
> are voting for.

I don't see a need for this. If there are no strong opinions and
almost same amounts on both sides it would be a waste of resources.

The argument that _stub should be appended to the *existing* catalog
name is IMHO good as it groups the package file together with the
old (pre-stub) package. I changed my opinion as this argument
convinced me. Aside from that I don't think there is a notable
difference how stubs are named.

So I suggest just going with that until someone has a strong other
opinion, ok?


Best regards

  -- Dago