Ok, we never reached a conclusion on this one :)
Let's see what the votes were, and decide like a democracy :) (I can understand why the ASF has a voting system):
Yes, and most ASF projects exercise the voting system only among committers (i.e. only committers votes count), also -1 from a committer usualy means a veto, so no matter how many +1 there are, -1 is no go.
We probably will do the same because you cannot just take votes from everyone who has happened to read the message and cared to reply without defining what's the quorum, e.g. Randy, who is an active doc maintainer, didn't vote.
'%' and 'root#' Thomas, allan, Jonathan, Per Einar
'nu%' and 'su%' Stas
'user%' and 'root#' Bill
I suggest as a compromise to go with Bill's suggestion.
Or if you want:
man% god#
;)
no prompt Ask
It seems to me like '%' and 'root#' wins. I hope it won't cause too much controversy :)
I'm fine with any solution which uses some prompt, I think the 'root#' prompt is wrong, because with 2.0 we are moving more into systems where there is no such a thing as 'root'. And therefore I've suggested 'su' as superuser (not su(1)), which is a generic concept. The second reason I've mentioned is the alignment of the command.
Hmm, still no go for some short name before the prompt? (mp == mod_perl?)
mp% perl Makefile mp# make install
__________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
