>>> On 07.10.15 at 10:23, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 07/10/2015 09:19, Ian Campbell wrote: >> On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 00:32 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 06.10.15 at 18:47, <car...@cardoe.com> wrote: >>>> On 10/6/15 7:45 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> Also, btw - I don't think we should name the thing Kconfig in Xen; >>>>> Xconfig would be odd too (to be confused with X), so maybe >>>>> XenConfig? >>>> I forgot to answer the 2nd paragraph in my last reply. Sticking to >>>> Kconfig was actually intentional to make it easy for us to stay in sync >>>> with upstream development of Kconfig. >>> How would a difference in names significantly hamper that? >> It doesn't seem to me that cosmetic differences like file names are worth >> forking over, even if the actual patch to do so would be trivial (I don't >> know if it is or not). >> >> The language and the tool which implements it is called Kconfig (or >> kconfig), the fact that K may once-upon-a-time have meant Kernel doesn't >> seem terribly relevant to me. > > I concur. Keeping it called kconfig will allow more people to know > exactly what it is.
Just for the record - my objection wasn't so much to the tool's name than to the names of the individual files the tool is to consume (hence also the use of respective upper case letters above). Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
