Hash: SHA256

Tony Godshall wrote:
> On 10/30/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hash: SHA256
>> Tony Godshall wrote:
>>> Perhaps the little wget could be called "wg".  A quick google and
>>> wikipedia search shows no real namespace collisions.
>> To reduce confusion/upgrade problems, I would think we would want to
>> ensure that the "traditional"/little Wget keeps the current name, and
>> any snazzified version gets a new one.
> Please not another -ng.  How about wget2 (since we're on 1.x).  And
> the current one remains in 1.x.

I agree that -ng would not be appropriate. But since we're really
talking about two separate beasts, I'd prefer not to limit what we can
do with Wget (original)'s versioning. Who's to say a 2.0 release of the
"light" version will not be warranted someday?

At any rate, the "snazzy" one looks to be diverging from classic Wget in
some rather significant ways, in which case, I'd kind of prefer to part
names a bit more severely than just "wget-ng" or "wget2". "Reget",
perhaps: that name could be both "Recursive Get" (describing what's
still its primary feature), or "Revised/Re-envisioned Wget". :)

I think, too, that names such as "wget2" are more often things that
packagers (say, Debian) do, when they want to include
backwards-incompatible, significantly new versions of software, but
don't want to break people's usage of older stuff. Or, when they just
want to offer both versions. Cf "apache2" in Debian.

> And then eventually everyone's gotten used to used to and can't live
> without the new bittorrent-like almost-multithreaded features. ;-)


- --
Micah J. Cowan
Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer...

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply via email to