On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 21:11 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 20:01 +0000, Mark Ellis wrote: > > > :) I can tell from this that David is in an optimistic mood and Adam is > > not having the best of days :) > > My day is fine, I'm just taking a maintainer perspective on this. Also, > a maintainer with a long memory who works on things that have been > around for a long time. Lots of them are forks, or were forked, or > really probably should have been forked, or changed names, or...=) > > I don't think there's really a perfect answer to the question, though. > So from a practical point of view, synce:// is probably as good as any > other choice. It's about as likely that Microsoft will come up with > ANOTHER completely new name for the OS or the protocol as it is that the > name synce will eventually not be valid for some reason, so there's no > really safe choice that I can think of. > -- > adamw >
Ok, well no one has said "that's a terrible idea", so I'll take that as a good thing. As to what we use, I don't like rapip, because it isn't quite anything. The best options therefore seem to be rapi or synce. I'm leaning more towards synce, mostly because it is only a 50% change, but I'll mull it over for a bit. Ta Mark
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/
_______________________________________________ SynCE-Devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/synce-devel
