From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:46:56 +0100 (BST) Received: from [222.92.8.141] ([222.92.8.141]:6086 "EHLO lemote.com") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20021796AbZDABqv (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 02:46:51 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lemote.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E5D340B6; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:44:11 +0800 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at lemote.com Received: from lemote.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (www.lemote.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fqRgAFm3kBxa; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:44:06 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [222.92.8.142]) by lemote.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B97B3409D; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:44:06 +0800 (CST) Message-ID: <49D2C77E.4090105@lemote.com> Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:46:38 +0800 From: yanhua User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: zhangfx@lemote.com, gnewsense-dev@nongnu.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, loongson@bjlx.org.cn, yanh@lemote.com Subject: Re: yeloong or yeeloong References: <15359.159.226.43.42.1238459390.squirrel@mail.lemote.com> <20090331175252.GB4918@adriano.hkcable.com.hk> In-Reply-To: <20090331175252.GB4918@adriano.hkcable.com.hk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 22224 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: yanh@lemote.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips There are really yeloong and yeeloong fix using. That is a mistake. Now I have all of them changed to yeeloong for consistency. The latest is already in our git repos. Zhang Le 写道: > Sorry for cross posting, but I just want to bring this issue to a wider > audience. > > Maybe I am not the one who should be worried about this. But since more and > more people will get these machines, we should settle it down as early as > possible. > > This is a bikeshedding problem[1], so _everyone_ is welcome to comment. > > First of all, this problem is first discovered by Liu Shiwei, the manager of > Beijing Loongson Club. If you search 'yeloong', this post will appear in the > first page: > http://www.lemote.com/bbs/redirect.php?tid=21768&goto=lastpost > > Then, I have proposed a naming convention change to lemote. That was a patch > which I didn't post it to a public mailing list. But you can get it here: > http://repo.or.cz/w/linux-2.6/linux-loongson.git?a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/lemote-naming-convention > In that patch, I sugguest keep fuloong, but call the notebook yeeloong instead > of yeloong. > > The following are the rationales behind my suggestions: > > 1. Fulong -> Fuloong. > > This one is good. For those who has a box, please cat your /proc/cpuinfo. > It should still be fulong. And I believe the fulong should be a typo. > > 2. Yeeloong -> Yeloong. > > I think this one is controversial. The e in Yeloong, to me, sounds like e > in yes, not ee in eel. So that the sound is changed, this action is by > itself bad. And Yeloong may make people connect it with the word yell, > which is not quite good a word. Moreover, the original sound is more like > its Chinese brand name. > > And, recently I have just noticed that at the long long last lemote is going > to push Loongson 2F patches to upstream, which is good. However, I found the > notebook's name is still yeloong: > http://dev.lemote.com/git?p=linux_loongson.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/to-mips > > So, I hope lemote could seriously take my suggestion in consideration. And if my > suggestion were rejected, please give your reason behind the rejection. > > Thanks for everyone's time! > > Zhang, Le > http://zhangle.is-a-geek.org > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_the_bikeshed > > -- 晏华