From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>, "Zippo Workers" <zippo-workers AT egroups DOT com>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: zippo 0.1.3 alpha 1
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:57:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIEEOPCAAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
In-Reply-To: <3A970CC3.20EAC8E3@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> '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
I kinda thought both contexts were one and the same (although the jargon
file provides no evidence) - after all, in olden days, someone "porting" an
application would have physically carried the sources (possibly in the form
of several boxes of punchcards) to the machine the application was being
ported to.
So I really don't see a problem with using 'porter'.