From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gordon JC Pearc e Subject: Re: Node.js and it's future in debian Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 20:48:24 +0100 Message-ID: <4FA2E108.2060806@gjcp.net> References: <20120501205524.GI30521@flying-gecko.net> <20120501215305.GA1250@burratino> <20120501221659.GA11430@flying-gecko.net> <20120502065003.GB2410@burratino> <20120502165031.GC7390@flying-gecko.net> <20120502171349.GA23806@burratino> <20120502200426.GF7390@flying-gecko.net> <4FA2A557.1080103@trinnet.net> <20120503170521.GD19468@flying-gecko.net> <20120503185129.GA18768@burratino> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120503185129.GA18768@burratino> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: pkg-javascript-devel-bounces+glddj-pkg-javascript-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.alioth.debian.org Errors-To: pkg-javascript-devel-bounces+glddj-pkg-javascript-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.alioth.debian.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: linux-hams@vger.kernel.org Cc: debian-hams@lists.debian.org, node@packages.debian.org, nodejs@packages.debian.org On 03/05/12 19:51, Jonathan Nieder wrote: . Which package should use the name "node" in the long term? What > can we do to ensure that happens eventually? > > (My answer is that I hope that neither uses the name "node" in > the long term.) Exactly. It's a stupidly common term, probably only slightly better than calling it "program". I don't buy into this idea that changing it will break all sorts of legacy scripts. If they are that fragile and undocumented, *get rid of them*! Undocumented fragile code is a liability. Kill it now, under "known" circumstances, and fix it up properly. -- Gordonjcp MM0YEQ