Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BA3AADE35 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 13:30:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 54958 invoked by uid 500); 7 Dec 2012 13:30:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 54929 invoked by uid 500); 7 Dec 2012 13:30:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact amber-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: amber-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list amber-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 54906 invoked by uid 99); 7 Dec 2012 13:30:28 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:30:28 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of tommaso.teofili@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.47] (HELO mail-pb0-f47.google.com) (209.85.160.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:30:23 +0000 Received: by mail-pb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id un1so328713pbc.6 for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 05:30:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=apb56hjkN1ZT1ySzrkz/dOsvGgMclJ0oJMf1fmuW7eE=; b=0MElMLp00LZU/JFCkYTQhR0yGO+cxHqCE9peuKe+gBWeuohtVeLI70HiTQ2SmwI7kh eMGIpwIIAkYvaR7x9HbasJxMih+ozgze4NlM0LsKnLlRbTF4p3ySe4Uz/dvR3M7ATZgF IH33ts3Evfx8w6Fj4GZpJql6WsP5zgVBussxgmSz1yrrFRg64Ke0U1zdXCqJ1jXqBgg7 9+PhEkkhvSrRLs0XSklogtbLHu3Jho26fer2rBHvU2zv1uAQfEOVk2dE8A/AQlh/aixQ yXakm9tzshFvE2JuauonEdkJc7rWeIe7CrpMTb2OkdxAPGI1+rnb4oxWeBNSa9MoxUpG adkQ== Received: by 10.68.83.68 with SMTP id o4mr16119496pby.25.1354887003410; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 05:30:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.24.136 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 05:29:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4071C1CF-7DEC-4D31-99CC-0BDFE3DCCBEE@adobe.com> From: Tommaso Teofili Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:29:23 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: podling name search To: amber-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b111e658c910204d0433694 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7b111e658c910204d0433694 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I think that, provided that we decide to change name, we should choose a completely new one to avoid confusion between Leelo and Apache Amber. +1 for a new name. Tommaso 2012/12/7 Antonio Sanso > > On Dec 7, 2012, at 11:46 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote: > > > thanks for bringing this to the table Antonio, if I recall correctly when > > the name change is usually encouraged when there's already at least one > > other software with the same name, in this case we're also talking about > > OSS so it may be the case :-( > > Indeed my main "concerns" about the name Amber comes from this search > > http://www.ohloh.net/p?page=1&q=amber&ref=homepage&sort=relevance > > Regards > > Antonio > > > > What do others think? > > Tommaso > > > > > > 2012/12/7 Antonio Sanso > > > >> Hi *, > >> > >> some time ago I have opened PODLINGNAMESEARCH-12 [0] in order to double > >> check Apache Amber will be a suitable name. > >> > >> I am still working on it but at a first glance it looks that this name > >> might overlap with some other pre-existing software. > >> So we might need to change the final name... :S > >> > >> WDYT? > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Antonio > >> > >> > >> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-12 > > --047d7b111e658c910204d0433694--