Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <3A970CC3.20EAC8E3@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 01:22:11 +0000
From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.17 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, Zippo Workers <zippo-workers AT egroups DOT com>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: zippo 0.1.3 alpha 1
References: <3A96A2B8 DOT 372C555D AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <20010223130146 DOT A1999 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

JT Williams wrote:
> It seems awkward to refer to the authors of our DJGPP ports
> as `porters' (given the usual meaning of `porter').  How about
> the following change?
> 
> Instead of this:
> 
> porter:
> porter-email:
> porting-web-site:
> 
> use this:
> 
> ported-by:
> ported-by-email:
> ported-by-web-site:

'porter' -> 'ported-by' seems OK, but the other suggestions seem awkward.
The usual meaning of porter may be someone that carries your bags to your
hotel room, etc., but I thought the meaning of 'porter' was OK in the
context of 'porting' an application. Do you think 'porter' is a misleading
word? If it's misleading, then it should be changed, otherwise I think it
should be left as-is.

There are lots of DSMs out there using 'porter'. Backward compatibility
could be achieved, like with 'type'. It used to be 'dsm-type', but was
changed to 'type', because the package type is part of the version
information.

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe <richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com> http://www.bigfoot.com/~richdawe/ 

"The soul is the mirror of an indestructible universe."
--- Gottfried W. Leibniz