On Jul 28, 2005, at 11:09 , Heikki Toivonen wrote:
On a related note, why osaf.pim? why not just "chandler"? I'm
guessing
the argument is that you could reuse these objects outside of
chandler,
which seems nice.. though even the osaf prefix seems superfluous
to me..
I don't like chandler for that, because then many people would have 3
nested chandler directories:
cd ~
mkdir chandler
cd chandler # my workdir
svn co ... chandler
cd chandler # svn chandler dir
cd chandler # current osaf dir
Oh, there's also chandler SVN repository. I'd go crazy...
Me, too :). Also, in projects I've worked on in the past, code names
(like "Chandler") have waxed and waned over time, and obsolete code
names are confusing.
--Grant
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
