Maybe the problem is in my head... :-) I'm actually just talking about the
title on the webpage, code and manuals already just say UST mostly.
My problem is that managers are going to the UST website and noting
LTTng-UST. Then they shorten it to LTTng (as they don't know better) which
confuses everyone who knows about LTTng (the patches on the kernel). Then,
once it's been explained to them about the kernel, and userspace, and how
they're different and separate and so on they start coming up with new
things. Yesterday I managed to stop one of them writing down LTTng-KST
(kernelspace tracer). :-/
So, sorry for all the commotion.
But maybe in the long-term we don't want to be called LTTng-UST? It's a
bit of a mouthfull and UST is short and sweet and doesn't share even part
of the name with another project. It's also better from a marketing
perspective. Just changing the title on the webpage and changing the
README would pretty much do it.
/Nils
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Pierre-Marc Fournier wrote:
Hi Nils,
I'm not sure I understand the problem you are referring to.
You are always free to say just UST, the tarballs are called ust.tar.gz, the
Debian package name is ust.
In what context do you see the project called LTTng-UST? Do you feel that it
comes from the website? Are you proposing a separate website be made for ust?
pmf
----- Original message -----
When discussing LTTng-UST I very often run into some confusion about the
name, specifically people assume I'm talking about LTTng. In order to
reduce the amount of confusion I suggest we rename LTTng-UST to just UST.
Pierre-Marc, Mathieu, everyone else, any comments?
/Nils
_______________________________________________
ltt-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
