On 10/31/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Tony Godshall wrote: > > On 10/30/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> 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. ;-) > > :)
Pget. Parallel get. Tget. Torrent-like-get. Bget. Bigger get. BBWget. Bigger Better wget. OK, ok sorry.
