I was trying to come up with something like that myself. I like the idea of keeping the 2. Somehow, "Migrate 2 Geronimo" was too obscure for me to grasp. Thanks for ending my mental struggle, Joe.
~Jason Warner On 10/29/07, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Kevan Miller wrote: > > > > > > On 10/29/07, *Tim McConnell* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G > > plugin in the > > future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is > > narrowly > > scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in > > the name). > > However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more > > generic tool for > > migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we > > would), it > > might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or > > appropriate name. > > Any thoughts ?? > > > > > > I think it's a good idea to call it a "migration tool". We definitely > > should not be using the name "JBoss". j2g would be ok (though i'd be in > > favor of a generic name). > > I agree. What's not to like about a generic migration tool to get > people on Geronimo even if the first version only works when you migrate > from JBoss? :-) > > Personally, I'd still like to see the "2" in the name. How about M2G > (Migrate to Geronimo)? The problem with something like "Geronimo > Migration tool" or even just "migration tool" is that the direction > isn't clear and we definitely want it to be known that we're helping you > migrate to Geronimo. > > Joe >
