On Apr 8 14:41, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 07:40:13PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Apr 8 13:26, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> cygwin-xp? cygwin-2008? > > > >cysta? :) > > > >cygwin-2008 isn't bad, though. > > > >> cygwin-nextgen? > > > >Or just cygwin-new, maybe. I'd take any of them, -new or -2008. > > In my experience, adding a "new" to any directory or file is a > guaranteed way of ensuring that the name will not always be accurate.
Why, we could always name the next versions "cygwin-newer", "cygwin-evenmorenew", "cygwin-newerthannew" and "cygwin-reallyreallynew-imeanit". > How about cygwinng? With a dash? cygwin-ng? Like syslog-ng. I was going to suggest this too, but I didn't want to copy the naming too bluntly. I guess we should use "cygwin-notasnewbutstillnewenough". I'm still more leaning towards cygwin-2008. You shouldn't have suggested the name. It's all your fault. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat