Re: [Monotone-devel] clarifications about bookkeeping dir

[Marcel van der Boom]

On 15 mrt 2006, at 12:49, Nathaniel Smith wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 12:13:25PM +0100, Marcel van der Boom wrote:
> > On the risk of being burned down, not having followed the details on
> > all threads on the bikeshed, what *exactly* is *wrong* the the
> > current 'MT' ?
>
> There are cognitive and referential benefit to having a unique single
> abbreviation.
gotcha

> Err... sorry.  Friends don't let friends write email when in the
> middle of reading social psychology books.
:-)

> It's an obfuscated way of saying, having it be abbreviated "mt" some
> places and "mtn" other places is annoying and confusing.  (And this is
> a part of the discussion of choosing an abbreviated name for the
> executable itself, most likely "mtn", see list archives for
> reasoning.)
Yeah, i dont particularly care about the executable name (i use mt  
for who cares, and mt.26 for .26 builds )
MT for bookkeeping i like, mtn is close to mnt for me

Is there more to be chewed on this topic or can we just make a  
decision and face the consequences?

mt for exec and MT for bookkeeping would get my vote if that helps

marcel

--
Marcel van der Boom
HS-Development BV               --   http://www.hsdev.com
So! webapplicatie framework  --   http://make-it-so.info

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature