On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:07:26PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Apr 8 14:41, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 07:40:13PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >On Apr 8 13:26, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >> cygwin-xp? cygwin-2008? >> > >> >cysta? :) >> > >> >cygwin-2008 isn't bad, though. >> > >> >> cygwin-nextgen? >> > >> >Or just cygwin-new, maybe. I'd take any of them, -new or -2008. >> >> In my experience, adding a "new" to any directory or file is a >> guaranteed way of ensuring that the name will not always be accurate. > >Why, we could always name the next versions "cygwin-newer", >"cygwin-evenmorenew", "cygwin-newerthannew" and >"cygwin-reallyreallynew-imeanit". > >> How about cygwinng? > >With a dash? cygwin-ng? Like syslog-ng. I was going to suggest this >too, but I didn't want to copy the naming too bluntly.
We actually use "ng" internally to Netapp. I actually wanted to call my project either "ds9" or "voyager" but I got vetoed. >I guess we should use "cygwin-notasnewbutstillnewenough". I'm still >more leaning towards cygwin-2008. You shouldn't have suggested the >name. It's all your fault. I hate the name! Hate it! But I don't really care. cygwin-2008 is fine with me. However, I predict that cgf-2012 will probably be grumbling about that name eventually. cgf