FWIW - I think we have done a decent job in keeping the vast majority of the searches to uncommon terms.. For the few you are suggesting renaming, I would argue that some of them dont really present a problem with their names anyway... Also it has been overlooked that for this conflict to display itself, the *first* search term has to be the one with the conflict.. if the term is embedded in a list, of course it doesnt present a conflict. As for including the transition-aliases.txt file, isnt this redundant with the aliases.txt file which we deliver (and over-write) with a release anyway?
Monty > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Shawn K. > Hall > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:21 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [DQSD-Users] "half" searches > > > Hi Guys, > > > > One thing we need to consider is that this change will > > > break a lot of aliases for a lot of people. > > > > I agree with John. Let's don't break anything. It's too > > easy to disable the searches, or use 'gg' as a prefix, or > > delete the searches if they aren't used. > > I wasn't suggesting we outright dump them all. ;) > > Wouldn't it be easy enough to change the existing searches and add a > 'transition-aliases.txt' to the distro that included aliases for the > oldName=>newName conversion? That way people could simply opt to > include transitional search 'names' or not during install, and > delete/modify the file later if they were so inclined. In this way we > could avoid distributing common term searches in future releases but > also make "upgrades" easier. ("transition-aliases.txt" would have to > be the first aliases file to be parsed in order to work correctly) > > IMO, we can't have it both ways: pushing to make searches without > using common terms and continuing to distribute them as "searches" in > our base install. I really think we ought to consider migrating away > from these searches and replacing them with alternative names. > > > Regarding appending "q" to searches - that was suggested as a possible > solution for searches that work well as common terms, but also avoids > the major rename headaches. I in no way suggest every search should be > renamed to include a "q", but rather, only those searches that a > meaningful and relevant shortened term is not reasonable. It's really > just a concern as simple as variable naming - I'm just proposing a > convention that would be acceptable for future 'common terms' > searches, or those existing ones that do not rename conveniently. > > Regards, > > Shawn K. Hall > http://ReliableAnswers.com/ > > '// ======================================================== > Cream rises to the top......but then, so does scum... > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. > Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it > help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help > YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe visit: > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dqsd-users > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=8601 > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe visit: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dqsd-users [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=8601
