Hi, * Rado S [06-06-02 14:37:44 +0200] wrote: [...]
Summarizing, this makes: - no extra cost, - while meaningful names are a gain for the manual users (and those who don't use them but go via adapted examples first).
Where fails my logic?
Personally I think you assume that people read, which I doubt somehow. At least we should be pessimistic enough to assume people don't read announcements and upgrading notes.
As the debate continues and as I read some votes, most people don't seem to wonder _if_ to change but _how_ a good way could be (since they're afraid of the abrupt change). And for a really good way, we need to be very pessimistic and give people (users, admins, ...) plenty of time to prepare.
My idea so far (to make it more concrete): make this change along other re-structuring public in mutt 2.0 which follows 1.6. In the announcement for 1.6 we already have to note that this release will be the last one in the 1.x series with the old naming scheme. The first commit to the 1.7 (or whatever devel branch will lead to 2.0) branch should be to do the change. Also I think since mutt is quite popular (since the muttng fork made it to the media), mutt 2.0 will be worth a news article. Maybe we should collect mail addresses of some news sites to ask for helping to spread the word...
We could then make a snapshot of the first 1.7 commit with the only difference to official 1.6 being the name changes. This snapshot could be used by port/package maintainers (which we have to mail privately) to test their system's upgrading mechanisms.
bye, Rocco -- :wq!