Hello, On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Tobias Schlitt <tob...@schlitt.info> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi Andreas, > > On 07/31/2010 05:15 PM, Andreas Schamberger wrote: > > > for me it seems wrong if I think 'zeta' and have to type 'ezc'. But > > maybe this is just a problem for me ;) > > I fully understand your concern here and I would still be in favor of > changing the prefix. However, there should be way of full BC for this > and until now we did not find any. > > Maybe, we will come to a point where we start building Zeta 2.0 somewhen > in the future. The we should migrate to using namespaces anyway and the > issue will be fixed. > > > I just wanted to have raised my concern. I'll shut up and let's forget > > about it ;) > > I think it was quite useful having this discussed publicly again. :) > Both options (keeping and updating the ezc prefix) have both pro and cons and as far as I am concerned I have no preference. However I think it is important not to confuse ZC users and as such I would recommend to provide some kind of FAQ explaining why the prefix is ezc for now, and what are (of any) plans for the future. Maybe a full page explaining the history of ZC, from eZ Components to Zeta Components would help clarify the context for new users. I can write such a page if you want. Confused users became generally unhappy user after some period users, and that we should definitely try to avoid. What do you think ? My 0.000002 cents, -- Jérôme Renard http://39web.fr | http://jrenard.info
