Christos Zoulas wrote:
> I think that you would agree that owners of applications should be
> allowed to name them as they please. And that me renaming my application
> causes equal "abuse" (inconvenience) to everyone.
If my reading of the current commit guideline is correct, a case
of renaming already released application doesn't fall into the
"obvious" fix because some people can possibly object to breaking
backward compatibility.
$NetBSD: commit-guidelines,v 1.3 2005/10/11 03:14:08 jschauma Exp $
...
4. The more intrusive your changes are the higher is the level
of required prior approval.
- "Obvious" fixes can be committed without any prior
discussion or review. (The definition of "obvious" in the
GCC Project is: "could not possibly cause anyone to
object." We adopt this definition here)
- All other (i. e. "non-obvious") fixes *should* have a
review.
- Implementing (significant) new features requires a prior
discussion on an appropriate technical mailing list.
- Changing existing interfaces in libraries or in the kernel
requires prior approval by Core.
--
Alex
