[Development] Enginio build artifacts and naming conventions

André Pönitz apoenitz at t-online.de
Wed Jun 4 23:59:47 CEST 2014

Towards the end of the First Age, naming things was easy: We mortals would
ask Jasmin. And when a new realm was about to be created one would need
to explain why this deserves to come into existence. And what it would be in
the future, and what beings will dwell there, and how they will relate to
the lesser and greater beings that already are named.

And a name would emerge.

And the name would be a True Name.

On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 11:55:36AM +0200, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 04, 2014 09:41:53 you wrote:
> > I think we should keep the Qt5 in the library names. Consistency is a good
> > thing. Making it completely free makes it harder to recognise what’s part
> > of Qt and what isn’t.
> > 
> > So IMO we should try to see how we can fix this going forward.
> I agree. I don't know how it can be ensured though. The current Enginio name 
> went through several people. The process let this through, so there is 
> probably a problem in the process?

Thanks to "global approvership" it takes two bots (plus up to half a dozen
humans that nit-pick on the spacing in the commit message) to get a patch
introducing new names _in_, and thanks to must-have features like "binary
compatibility" (in the notable absence of any promise of behavioural
compatibility) it's close to impossible to change a name, or even get it
_out_ again.

You consider calling that _A_ problem?




> What do you think?

I think it's completely unrelated to Enginio.

More information about the Development mailing list