geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] G 2.0 M1 Content
Date Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:52:20 GMT
eh... I think proteinStrand, chimp, frog is soooo much better Matt :-P

I just don't want to start hearing people talking about "m1" and  
meaning "2.0-m1" compared to the first m1 of Geronimo.

I'm going to drop this now... my opinion has been noted... and now ye  
all shall continue :-)

--jason


On Dec 5, 2006, at 12:35 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

>
> On Dec 5, 2006, at 2:41 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> On Dec 5, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
>>> I don't see the confusion at all, as long as the M<n> is preceded  
>>> by the final release version (ex. geronimo-2.0-M1).
>>
>> Yes, but already Matt is referring to "M1" with no 2.0 prefix.
>>
>> Anyways... I don't like it... but I don't have the energy to  
>> debate it.
>
> My bad.   I meant 2.0-M1...I'll correct that omission in the  
> future.  I now understand the confusion.
>
> What other suffix do you think would be appropriate?  I don't care  
> if its 2.0-frog1.  Following an evolutionary theme we could have:
>
> 2.0-proteinStrand
> 2.0-singleCellOrganism
> 2.0-fish
> 2.0-frog
> 2.0-chimp
> 2.0-homosapien
> 2.0
>
> :)
>
>
>>
>> --jason
>>
>
> Matt Hogstrom
> matt@hogstrom.org
>
>


Mime
View raw message