On Tuesday 15 Jun 2010 at 22:04 Ray Rashif wrote:
On 15 June 2010 23:37, Bram Schoenmakers <lists@bramschoenmakers.nl> wrote:
Yes, it would be up to Bram. He could either:
1) keep on maintaining current package 2) disown current package and adopt the orphan 3) disown current package and let someone else (you) adopt the orphan
Is it that important, the naming convention? Still, I have no problem with taking option 2. Downside is that the current package loses its votes. Not that I attach much value to that, but maybe someone else cares. :)
Nope, not that important or big of a deal (at least not as long as it's in [unsupported]).
The only benefit is that you stay in line with the naming in [extra], so it would then be more search-friendly. And yes, the votes will be lost, but they can grow again :)
In any case, let us know which option you're comfortable with so we can remove one of them.
Yes, whatever the importance or lack thereof of naming conventions, I was just pointing out the duplication. There should be only one package, at least. Pete.