[infrastructure] Re: [development] Drupal 4.5 unsupported
kb at 2bits.com
Wed May 31 23:22:14 UTC 2006
> Another thread I have to jump in on. What is the desired outcome of this
> thread by the original poster? The answer: to make sure the naming
> convention is clear and consistent.
> As Speck said, it's been the same for the last 3 years. So given the
> desired outcome (stability, clarity), how would changing *anything* after
> three years of stable naming convention produce anything but a lose-lose for
> everyone involved. As Adrian pointed out (and it's a good point!), it
> wouldn't "change a single thing" for development.
I am not hungup on moving to A naming scheme because other projects
use it. Granted, a more widely used scheme has a better chance of
being understood vs a more obscure one.
However, it seems that the current scheme is not communicated well.
Or is communicated, but the message failed to reach the intended
So, how do we make it more easy to find/communicate or use a scheme
that has a better chance of being understood?
More information about the development