sounds good. i like the specificity and clarity of "engine". should make it easier to keep that codebase focused on the template engine. it's easier to waste time arguing over whether something should be considered "core" functionality or not.
On 11/5/05, Will Glass-Husain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > engine is fine with me. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Newsgroups: hometree.jakarta.velocity.dev > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 9:35 AM > Subject: Renaming "core" to "engine"? > > > > While browsing the docs, I've noticed that in Subversion, the actual > > Velocity engine is called "core" (most prominently in the SVN > > repository path) but in the docs, it is referenced as "engine" > > everywhere. > > > > Personally, I like engine better. Any objections to move the svn > > repository to .../velocity/engine and updating all the references from > > "core" to "engine"? > > > > Best regards > > Henning > > > > -- > > Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ > > > > RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire > > Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development > > > > 4 - 8 - 15 - 16 - 23 - 42 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
