IMO there is nothing wrong with a code name for a subproject. Look no further than the shale subproject. Its a lot easier to refer to that subproject as shale then to accurately capture that project with a "meaningful" one word name.
If we picked a codename that had some meaning behind it as well (lonewolf) that would be a bonus. We already call the project "components" and it is not really accurate as it contains both components and extensions. The subproject can stand on its own with any RI so IMO its important to give it a catchy shorthand name. sean On 5/30/05, John Fallows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/30/05, Matt Blum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think a boring name like "components" would be much more meaningful than > > a cool name like "tomahawk." > > We need a balance between boring and cool that both captures > attention, yet remains informative. > > How about Tomahawk Faces Extensions as the official name, with just > tomahawk as a convenient short form for mailing lists, etc? > > Btw, I deliberately say "Extensions" over "Components" above because > there is obviously a lot more to extending Faces than just components. > > Kind Regards, > John Fallows. >
