Assuming there is enough code not pushed upstream into NOX out there, I am personally against name changes like this. The last time someone changed secchan to ofprotocol in OpenFlow, too much work results. Unless someone volunteer to update everyone's code to the new namespace, I see no reason why such a change should be made.
Regards KK On 21 February 2010 18:15, Martin Casado <[email protected]> wrote: > That would be fantastic. Yes, vigil is purely vestigial. > >> IIRC, all of the "namespace vigil" references are historical and >> outdated -- is that correct? Is there any reason not to wholesale >> replace vigil with 'nox'? >> >> The current name causes some confusion in the source code. >> >> I can do the honors if people agree that it's a good idea. >> >> >> - Rob >> . >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nox-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://noxrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/nox-dev_noxrepo.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > nox-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://noxrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/nox-dev_noxrepo.org > _______________________________________________ nox-dev mailing list [email protected] http://noxrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/nox-dev_noxrepo.org
